Implementation of the Interagency\
Fire Program Management Standards

A broadcast originating from the BLM National Training Center in
Phoenix, Arizona

This program will also be simulcast on the National Park Service/\
Fish & Wildlife Service Digital Satellite System

**October 21, 2004**

This transcript is from the closed-captioning file produced during the
telecast.

It may contain errors and omissions in transcription.

The national fire and aviation board and the office of wildland fire
coordination present live from the BLM national training center in
Phoenix, Arizona, the interagency fire program management standards. An
overview of the IFPM standard and the implementation program. Now the
host of your program, Vincent Galterio.

V. Galterio: Good morning from Phoenix, Arizona, and welcome to our
overview of the new Interagency fire program qualification standards and
guide. To underscore the importance of what we\'re going to cover today
we would like to begin with the Washington office. We\'ll hear from Nina
Rose Hatfield at the Department of the Interior and from Alice Forbes,
the fire operations Director at the USDA Forest Service.

N. Hatfield: As we\'ve looked at studies of wildland fire incidents over
the years, we\'ve concluded that there\'s a need for more stringent
uniform qualification standard for certain fire management positions.
For several years, fire and human resources representatives from the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service have worked together
to develop the Interagency fire program management qualifications
standard and guide referred to as the IFPM standard. The IFPM standard
establishes for the first time minimum qualification standards as well
as competencies for 14 key fire management positions that are common to
the five federal Wildland Fire Management agencies. Fire program
representatives have worked closely with human resources specialists
throughout the process to insure the standards are applied consistently
and equally across all federal wildland fire agencies.

The goal of the new qualification standards is safety. The training,
educational experience and competency requirements all contribute to
developing and enhancing fire manager\'s expertise and thus improving
safety and increasing efficiency and effectiveness on the fire line. The
new qualifications standards provide a clear and broad perspective of
the knowledge, skills and abilities considered necessary to improve our
expertise and decision making process in the field. The implementation
of the new qualification standards across the agencies and programs will
provide consistent career ladders for federal firefighters and fire
program specialists. The position designations of professional or
technical do not reflect the quality of the work performed, but rather
are terms that identify job complexity and responsibility. Every
supervisor is responsible for ensuring that employees you supervise are
provided every opportunity to receive the necessary education, training
and experience to meet the new qualification standards. Likewise, every
employee is responsible for becoming aware of the new qualification
standards, identifying his or her future goals, pursuing the education
and training and experience that you need. Cooperation from all
employees, fire management, human resources and training is critical to
ensure a timely and consistent implementation of the IFPM standard. But
in the end, we\'ll have a much stronger wildland fire program.

A. Forbes: Good morning. I\'m here today to talk to you a little bit
about the Interagency fire program management standards. These standards
were developed as a result of the 1995 policy review. We\'ve had many
individuals working on these standards over the course of the last nine
years to bring them to where they are today, which is ready for
implementation. The intent of the fire management standards was to
enhance the safety of our firefighters and the professionalism of the
people that we have out there providing leadership to our troops on the
ground. We know that we have many, many dedicated employees out there
already who are doing an excellent job and we know that when you\'re in
the fire situation, those snap decisions have to be made. The intent of
the fire program management standards is to enhance your ability to make
appropriate decisions on the ground. The new organization that we\'re
going to have with the development of these standards will be more
reflective of a safe, on the ground operating environment.

I know many of you are very concerned about going to this new standard
policy and feel it\'s going to limit your opportunities. I\'m here today
to tell you that this can only enhance your opportunities. It\'s going
to give management an opportunity to view an employee\'s skill and
develop that employee into the management leaders tomorrow. We\'re
hoping out\' ask questions and we\'ll develop a professional workforce
to do on the ground firefighting. I would appreciate it the time to do
the \-- view the archive document so you can determine what you may need
to do in order to move forward in the fire organization. Our goal for
the future is to have a professional, knowledgeable, skilled group of
people out there on the fire ground doing the job and protecting our
employees and the public and the natural resources.

V. Galterio: Now I would like to introduce our panel. With me this
morning is Doug Alexander, fire manager from the northern great planes
national parks, welcome, Doug.

D. Alexander: Thank you, Vince, great to be here and part of the
session. How about them sox?

V. Galterio: Also with us today is Jim grant, fire management office
from the Sha-wan-o-gun Nicolet office in Washington.

J. Knox: It\'s a pleasure to be here. I look forward to the future of
the itch process.

V. Galterio: Completing our first instructional panel is Jim Knox. Jim
is from the national Interagency fire center.

J. Knox: I\'ve enjoyed this week working with the fire management
specialists and the HR specialists in preparing for this interagency
broadcast.

V. Galterio: Thanks. Before we start, let\'s take \-- let\'s talk about
the format for the broadcast today, which will last approximately three
hours with a one-hour break in the middle. We\'ll begin with an overview
of the Interagency fire management qualification standards and guide or
the IFPM standard as we\'ll call it today. After that, we\'ll go into
the nuts and bolts of your role in its implementation. For detailed
information, make sure you visit the website at\... If you have trouble
with that or didn\'t get it written down, we\'ll show it some more. You
can also navigate it to by just going to NIFC\'s website. It\'s
important that you listen and participate in the entire broadcast.

This session is designed to address your questions, we\'ll be taking by
phone and fax. You can call us toll-free at\... We\'ll show you the
numbers again later during the program. Feel free to get us a question
at any time but we may hold it until an appropriate time in the
telecast. We\'ll also have time for general questions and answer
planned. The specialists on our program represent all five of the
federal wildland fire agencies. We\'ll be using the terms agencies and
bureaus interchangeably. To kick things off, we\'re going to get a
historical perspective from Paul Broyles, fire operations and safety
program lead at the national Park Service. Paul was appointed as the
chair of the original committee tasked to develop fire management
qualification standards.

P. Broyles: Prior to the IFPM\'s recent implementation, no federal
Wildland Fire Management agency had a comprehensive set of qualification
standards or competencies for key fire program management positions. On
occasion this resulted in agencies assigning people to fire positions
for which they had little or no qualifications or experience or
background. This happened in all the bureaus, all the agencies at local,
regional or state level and occasionally at the national level. After
the 1994 tragedy at south canyon, the subsequent interagency management
review team report recommended that minimum qualifications be
established for fire managers who made fire management decisions that
affected personnel and personnel safety. The subsequent 1995 federal
Wildland Fire Management policy also made the strong recommendation that
minimum qualification standards be identified and developed for key fire
management positions for folks that made decisions affecting firefighter
safety.

In the spring of 1997, the federal fire and aviation leadership council,
FFAOC, identified a task group to \-- and chartered them to develop
agency fire program management qualification standards, program
complexities and fire management competencies. Group first met in July
of 1997. Many of you may remember the awareness study conducted by
tri-data corporation for the FFAOC. In March of 1998, they issued their
phase III report. That report specifically recommended that
qualification standards be identified for key leadership positions. The
departments of agricultural and interior advised the task group until
the office of personnel management approved off on the proposed
supplemental standards for professional Wildland Fire Management, the
GS-401, that the departments could not issue the IFPM as anything but
guidelines, and not as policy, which could be enforced. So we shifted
gears at that point and started working with the office of personnel
management, OPM, department of agricultural and Department of Interior
in establishing a \-- an acceptable version of the GS-401 supplemental
standards for professional Wildland Fire Management. We got through
that, and in August of 2002, OPM signed off on the supplemental
standards. We were able then to concentrate on the entire. EUFPLT: As a
whole working with the human resource folks at the department of the
interior, the Forest Service, department of agricultural and the four
interior bureaus, we were then able to, with quite a bit of work, come
up with language for a white paper that outlined the implementation
steps for the IFPM. In June of 2004, this summer, that implementation
memo was signed by the chief of the Forest Service and the Director of
human resources for the \-- the Department of the Interior. It\'s been a
long seven years coming from policy direction from the 1995 federal fire
policy to where we are today, implementation phase. However,
establishing minimum qualifications standards, particularly with
specialized experience and NWCG instant management and prescribed fire
qualifications will go a long way to addressing personnel safety issues
that were originally identified in the south canyon tragedy.

V. Galterio: Now that we have that historical perspective, let\'s talk
about the interagency fire program management qualification standards
and guide or the IFPM standard. We\'ve got two Jives up. So. Why don\'t
you tell us about the components of the standard.

J. Knox: I\'ll do that. The IFPM standard consists of four components,
key fire management positions, minimum qualification standards, rating
guide for evaluating program complexity and complexities for key fire
management positions. The 14 key fire management positions are
Interagency hotshot crew superintendent, helicopter manager, senior
firefighter, engine module supervisor, supervisory fire engine operator,
initial attack dispatcher, assistant center manager, wildland fire
operation specialist, prescribed fire and fuels specialist, prevention
and education specialist, center manager, unit fire program manager,
geographic area fire program manager and the national fire program
manager. We\'ll talk more about these positions later in the broadcast.
By the way, the last batch of the 31 standard interagency position
descriptions has been signed off by the bureau classifiers this week.
These position description have been submitted to the \-- for
firefighter coverage determination, and when approved, these position
descriptions will be posted.

V. Galterio: How about minimum qualification standards, Jim, what are
they all about?

J. Knox: The original task group that developed the IFPM standard
defined specific qualification criteria for each of the 14 key fire
management positions. This includes the OPM basic qualification
standards for the GS-401, GS-455, GS-462 and the OPM approved
supplemental standard for the GS-401 fire management specialist.
Specialized experience requirements for position and grade, NWCG
incident management qualifications and additional required training.

V. Galterio: The next two components seem to be questions for a fire
manager. So, Doug, why don\'t you tell us about the rating guide for
determining program complexities and the 14 key fire management
positions.

D. Alexander: Thank you, Vince, I will. The rating guide is a set of
eight elements used to define the overall complexity of a fire
management program. The rating will be completed at the unit level. For
example, in the Park Service, that would be at the park level or area
level. So every fire management program will be signed a rating of low,
moderate or high based on those elements. An example of one of the eight
elements is preparedness. In training and qualifications are the sub
elements of it. We\'ll be talking more about that program later. As Jim
Knox discussed earlier, the 14 key fire management positions, the final
component is the competencies. First I would like to point out that the
competencies are a separate requirement from the minimum qualification
standards identified earlier. The IFPM standard both \-- standard
identifies both position-specific competencies as well as competencies
that are common to all positions. Each of the competencies has an
identified expertise level, working, journey or expert, which describes
the level of knowledge required. Again, we\'ll be talking more about the
competencies later in the broadcast. Back to you.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Doug. Now let\'s talk about what the IFPM standard
means to you, the employees in the field. For that we\'ll go to Jim
Grant.

J. Grant: There are several things that need to be looked. First the
standard began on October 1st, 2004 and the implementation period runs
October 1st, 2009. During the identification position process if your
position is determined to be one of the 14 key positions it is your
supervisor\'s responsibility to discuss your qualification and any
additional developmental needs you may have. Employees in any of the 14
key fire management positions will have until October 1st, 2009, to meet
the IFPM minimum qualification standards. Employees applying for one of
the 14 key fire management positions will need to meet the minimum
qualification standards when they apply. I also would like to point out
that the IFPM standard is not just about the 401 educational
requirements. As we mentioned, there are several components to the IFPM
standard.

The positive education requirements are only one piece of the minimum
qualification standards. This is not to say that the \-- that some
positions won\'t have a positive education requirement. The key here is
that not all the positions identified in the IFPM standard will have
that requirement. Now let\'s talk about the competencies. To meet the
competencies, an employee will have three years from the date they are
notified by human resources that they meet the OPM and IFPM minimum
qualification standards for their position. For applicants selected to
positions, you will have three years from the date of entrance on duty
to meet the competencies.

V. Galterio: We\'re hearing a lot about training and qualifications and
competencies and it sounds pretty expensive, Jim. Who is going to pay
for all of this?

Grant: it\'s pretty simple, Vince, it\'s the agency\'s responsibility to
provide funding for training and to provide time for every incumbent who
is in a position affected by an IFPM standard to take that training.
This includes assisting the employee to complete their training and
other developmental needs by October 1st, 2009. Vince?

V. Galterio: Thanks, Jim. We\'ve just heard a discussion about how this
affects employees. Let\'s go back to Jim Knox to here what happens if
you don\'t agree with the assessment of your qualifications made your
agency.

J. Knox: Vince, on those rare occasions when an employee does not meet
the IFPM qualification but feels that their overall background qualifies
them, the IFPM resolution board can review their qualifications and make
a final decision. Employees will be able to pursue this review through
the chain of command. This board, the IFPM resolution board, consists of
representatives from all five wildland fire agencies. To learn more
about the board, let\'s hear from Winford Hooker with the Department of
the Interior.

W. Hooker: The resolutions board has two functions. The first function
is to review and decide on cases where employees who have been ruled
ineligible under the IFPM standard but still who believe that they
should be ruled eligible under the standard, that\'s one function that
the resolutions board has. The second function is the resolutions board
will review and decide on those requests for extensions of the 2009
deadline. The resolutions board\'s decision will be in writing, and it
will state specifically the board\'s opinion in the case. The
resolutions board will issue its decision simultaneously to the
employee, the employee\'s immediate supervisor, the employee\'s
servicing H.R. office, the bureau headquarters fire management office
and the H.R. office. Now, the procedure for function number two will
follow the same pattern. The only difference could be that the fire
management could initiate the proposal.

The key to the second function is that the incident must be beyond the
employee or fire management\'s control. The time line for the resolution
board\'s decisions under normal circumstances the board has 60 days to
render its decision. Now, normal circumstances means that the board does
not need any additional information such as through interviews or
additional documentation. Now, if it occurs that the board decides it
needs additional information, then the board may take up to 90 days to
render its decision. So I would encourage all of you to read appendix A
of the implementation plan, which includes the information that I just
explained to you, along with all of the other information on the website
concerning the implementation plan and the IFPM standard itself. Thank
you.

V. Galterio: The resolution board is a real important part of this whole
thing and hook just gave us a real brief introduction to it, but you can
get more information about the operation of the resolution board in
appendix A of the implementation plan. Another issue with regard to \--
another issue with regards to education is the determination of what

non-college courses meet the intent of the GS-401 supplemental standard.
To learn more we\'re going to hear from Dave Koch, BIA training office.

D. Koch: August 2002 is when the office of personnel management approved
the GS-401 supplemental standard, the position standard. Along with this
approval came the authority to maintain the list of other education
creditable towards that standard. So you have the basic OPM education
standard, which we cannot change, but they gave us the authority to
maintain the list of other education creditable towards the standard. So
with that the federal fire training task group, the FFTTG chartered a
subcommittee known as the GS-401 education training assessment board,
and the intent of that board is to basically maintain this list, this
other education creditable towards the GS-401 supplemental standard
list.

The board itself is composed of individuals from the five federal land
management agencies as well as academia. The assessment board is going
to be looking at courses primarily from sources other than academia,
sources other than universities. The list may be expanded to include
additional courses in the future. The list also \-- we also may
determine that some of the courses that are on this list no longer meet
the intent of the GS-401 supplemental standard, so consequently, this
board may actually pull some of those courses off the list. However,
that will probably be a fairly rare occurrence. In order for a course to
be considered creditable education, it must meet the intent of the 401
standard, which means it has to relate to the disciplines of general
biology, forestry, agriculture, natural resource disciplines, fire
management disciplines. This board will meet about once a year. We have
developed a form that is attached to the IFPM implementation package, as
well as a time line for when those forms need to be submitted to us and
so forth.

V. Galterio: More about the operations of the GS-401 education and
training assessment can also be found in appendix A of the
implementation plan. You just heard a lot of overview information on the
IFPM standard. Now we\'re going to take some time to address some of
your questions. So those of you that have questions out there, call or
fax them into us and we\'d be happy to address them. I have one fax here
in front of me to start with. So let me read this one from the six
rivers national forest. It says, what about all the positions not among
the 14 identified ones? Why not support a firefighter series rather than
a biological series? And it\'s from John on the six rivers. Jim Knox,
you want to take that one?

J. Knox: Yes, Vince. This subject was discussed with OPM when we first
started the IFPM process, and what we found very quickly is \-- from OPM
is that, number one, they\'re reducing the number of classification
standards that they\'re producing. And number two, they weren\'t
interested in classifying a fire classification series, they weren\'t
interested in producing that. So that\'s as far as we could go on that
one.

V. Galterio: Thank you, Jim. We\'ve got a caller here on line 1. I
don\'t know who the call is from. But I\'d be happy to take that one.
They\'re not ready yet. Okay. Let\'s take this fax that I have here in
front of me, then. This is another one from the six rivers from Kent. It
says: in the Q and As provided, why didn\'t the organization get their
own series from OPM? Part of the answer is that OPM was not \-- I\'m
sorry, I\'m having a hard time reading the real small writing. Let me
skip that word. I have personally seen with the\... boy, I am sorry,
I\'m having a hard time. Let me go to the question from Kent and I\'ll
take a look at this and try to read it. But please when you fax it in,
your handwriting is real good, but it\'s just real small and I\'m having
a hard time seeing it. Let me ask a question that I have right now. That
is, when we saw the video from Dave, he talked about the possibility of
taking a course that was creditable at the time you took it but is not
creditable now. Someone want to address that one?

J. Knox: I\'ll take a shot at that, Vince. As everybody knows, courses
do change. They change in content. They change in numbering. They change
in intent. The way we\'re going to handle this is if a firefighter took
a course that was creditable at one point, even if that course later was
determined not to be creditable, we would still credit the firefighter
who took the course when it was creditable.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Jim. Let\'s go to sue in lake wood. Sue, you there?
Sue?

Caller: Yes. My question regards the fire planner positions and the fire
safety officer positions. In the regional office we already have our
fire planner and safety officer positions rated as 401 series but on the
forests, especially with regard to the fire planner positions, they are
still 462, GS-9. So I\'ve looked through the crosswalk, and I can\'t
find anything that addresses where those positions fit in, and also we
just want to make sure we\'re on track with our fire safety officer
position in the regional office, that they also fall within the IFPM.
Vince, I think I can hopefully address a little bit of that. As you
know, the crosswalk, there\'s a crosswalk been developed out there and
the big thing to realize here is that not all positions at this point
have been recognized in the fire organization, and the planner that you
mentioned, and I believe you said safety officer, we don\'t \-- we
can\'t say at this time \-- answer that question. I can\'t answer that
at this time. I think this is going to be an ongoing thing that we\'re
going to have to be open to new positions that may or may not come upon
certain groups that may develop to address those kind of situations that
you\'re explaining here. Jim, have you got anything to add to that, or
anybody else?

J. Knox: No, I think you\'re right. There will be a little more
discussion on the crosswalk later and I think that will be helpful.

V. Galterio: Thanks a lot, sue, for that question. I would like to take
just a moment here while we\'re waiting for the next call or fax to come
in to show you what the binder looks like for the IFPM standards and
guide. This is what you\'ll find on the website, and I want to show it
to you because when you look at it, you can see how thick it is, but
that shouldn\'t make anybody worried at all. It\'s got sections in it
for each of the 14 key positions, and it\'s very user-friendly on the
web where you can just go and click on the parts that you need at that
moment. So don\'t be intimidated at all by the size of those binders. I
believe there\'s another fax right there? This is a fax from Jim with
the BLM in Salt Lake. As a unit fire program manager with a declining
preparedness budget, how can I expect to fund additional training and
still hire suppression personnel? I\'m already struggling \-- that I\'m
already struggling with. Keep Attack resources minimally staffed. It\'s
a budget question on how we can afford the training plus the forces he
needs to hire. Who would like to address that one? Vince, I can address
that a little here. I couldn\'t agree more. Excellent question. Many of
us fire program managers, people in the fire manager situations have
that same exact question. Do we have a clear answer? Not a clear answer,
but we do know one thing, that this whole IFPM process is based on
safety, and safety is the main thing that we need to carry through to
whatever it takes. I guess we can\'t dictate what the future is going to
be in the budget, but it is a very important question, and planning that
we need to look forward to address our safety concerns.

V. Galterio: Thanks a lot, Jim. We\'re going to go to another call now
from cliff in Phoenix. Cliff, are you there?

Caller: My question has to do with the relationship of the new standards
with the standards currently in place by NWCG and how that will relate
to state forestry organizations and local fire departments and how these
standards will co-exist.

V. Galterio: Thanks, cliff. Gentlemen? It\'s a relationship between the
current standards and people that aren\'t federal employees, the state.

J. Knox: Well, Vince, as you know, the IFPM standards were built and
designed only for federal employees. We certainly can\'t dictate to the
state what their standards ought to be, so for now, we\'ll very probably
end up with two separate sets of standards. The workgroup that developed
the IFPM standard did discuss this, and the thinking there was that at
some point in the future it would be advantageous if the states adopted
the federal IFPM standards for their position so that we would have
consistency between the state and federal agencies.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Jim. I\'ve got another fax here that sounds like a
good question. Thank you to cliff in Phoenix. We appreciate your
question. Jim, I\'ve got another fax in here, and it sounds like a good
one for you. Can a candidate that is currently an employee request a
review of a qualification decision through the resolution office? I
think she means the board.

J. Knox: Currently an employee --

V. Galterio: Currently an employee and she\'s questioning the review of
their qualification decision. Can they request a review of that?

J. Knox: Yes, they can, Vince. As I said earlier, if they\'re found not
to be qualified but they really feel that their overall qualifications
meet the intent of the IFPM, then they can go and request a review from
the board but they have to go through their chain of command and I think
that\'s really important, and I know the department stresses that
because a lot of these things can be resolved at a lower level rather
than going up to the Washington office.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Jim. We have time for just one more call in this
segment, but if we don\'t get to your question, you can hold or fax it
in. We\'re going to take this one from John with the BLM in Albuquerque.
Good morning, John.

Caller: Good morning, Vince. My question is, there must have been some
thought that was put into leaving a lot of the assistants position off
the key list positions, particularly the assistant engine module leaders
that the BLM uses and, for that matter, like assistant fire management
officers, too.

V. Galterio: Gentlemen? Jim?

J. Knox: I\'ll take a shot at that one. When these positions were
developed by the workgroup that put the I IFPM standard together, they
did have fire management specialist \-- actually subject matter experts
from each of the five agencies, and that group identified the positions
that are listed there as 14 key fire positions. There were quite a few
other positions that were considered, but these are the ones that they
could all agree upon that were common to all the agencies and were
similar enough that they could define qualification standards for these
positions.

V. Galterio: Might some of those assistant positions be covered under
the senior firefighter?

J. Knox: That\'s possible. We do have \-- when they get \-- we get to
the part about position descriptions \-- or as I mentioned, position
descriptions, we do have statements of difference for the lower graded
ones. So there\'s quite an array of PDs out there, and Vince is
suggesting, if you can\'t have it in one category, you should look at
the other categories and see if there might be a fit there. Just a
comment on that, Jim and Vince. I think it\'s real important that they
look at those two positions that are currently identified out of the 14
key positions that address those engine module supervisors. Don\'t
overlook what might fit into that category.

V. Galterio: Thanks a lot, John. I appreciate your question. Thank you
to everyone for those questions. It\'s taking just a minute or two for
us to get the kinks out of getting faxes and phone calls and all these
things at once. So bear with me if I go back and forth. And I appreciate
the clarity people are trying to make their faxes. To learn more about
the IFPM standard and implementation plan, you can go to the website
that\'s shown up there on the screen again. Everything we\'ve talked
about to this point has been an overview of the IFPM standard. In this
next part we\'re going to get into the nuts and bolts of the IFPM
standard implementation plan. To get us started here we\' going to hear
from Merrie Johnson.

Before the panel explains the IFPM standard implementation plan, I would
like to give you a little background on the implementation team and the
development of the plan. The national fire and aviation executive board,
NAFAB assigned the federal fire training task group, which is the
federal training officers, to develop an implementation plan by October
1st of 2004. In order to accomplish this, the federal fire training
officers chartered an implementation team for the IFPM. The IFPM team
was tasked to provide clear direction to the fire management officers,
the personnel officers and the field on how to implement the interagency
fire program management standards. The plan is consisting of four
different areas. The first area covers the key fire management
positions, which positions they are, the standards and qualifications
for those positions, and the competencies that are required for each of
those positions. The implementation plan provides procedures for
recruitment and staffing under the IFPM standards. Then step by step
procedures and accompanying documentation are provided to assist the
field in implementing the IFPM standards. Operating procedures for the
IFPM resolution board and the GS-401 training and assessment board are
also provided as part of the implementation plan.

V. Galterio: While you\'re hearing from Merrie Johnson we brought in a
new instructional panel to walk us through the implementation process.
Joining us now is Kevin Conn in Lakeview Oregon.

K. Conn: Hello, Vince. It\'s a pleasure to be here today. Hopefully we
can answer some questions that are rising in the field.

V. Galterio: Also with us is Beth Lund, zone fire management officer
from the Boise national forest. Welcome, Beth.

B. Lund: Thanks, Vince. I\'m glad to be here. I know this is really
important information for everyone out there in the fire management
community as well as human resources.

V. Galterio: And completing our training team is Cindy Pogue, BLM Idaho
state office supervisory human resource specialist. Welcome, Cindy.\
Thanks, Vince. Happy to be here. Hopefully we can answer some questions
from the human resources side as well as the fire community.

V. Galterio: Before our panel takes over, let\'s look at all the steps
in the implementation process. Step 1 is to complete a complexity
analysis. Step 2 is position identification. Step 3 is to determine
qualifications. Step 4 is employee notification. Step 5 is to assess
employees developmental needs. Step 6 is to initiate an IDP. Step 7 is
employee monitoring. Step 8 is employee conversion. And step 9,
hopefully, we don\'t get to, but is removal from the position if all
else fails. Now let\'s take a closer look at each of the steps. Beth,
would you please tell butts first step, the complexity analysis?

B. Lund: I can do that, Vince. The first step in the process is the unit
complexity analysis. Earlier we touched on the rating guide for
evaluating fire program complexity. Now I\'d like to talk to you about
the complexity analysis process itself. The complexity analysis is done
at the unit level by the fire management officer. For purposes of this
process, each agency has defined add unit as follows: For the Bureau of
Indian Affairs it\'s the tribe or agency. For the Bureau of Land
Management, it\'s district or field office. The Fish & Wildlife Service,
it\'s a refer usage or zone. For the national Park Service, it\'s a park
or an area. And for the Forest Service, it\'s the forest. Determination
of program complexity in turn determines the complexity of fire program
manager\'s position or the unit FFMO. It does not necessarily determine
the complexity of subordinate support and other key fire management
positions that have variable complexity within the overall unit such as
the prescribed fire and fuel specialist, the fire prevention and
education or mitigation specialist, and the wildland fire operations
specialist. An example would be my position as a zone FMO will most
likely fall under the unit program manager category, however, the
complexity, will not necessarily be the same as for the overall unit.
These situations will have to be worked out on a unit by unit basis by
the unit program manager. You can refer to chapter 6 of the IFPM
standard for more information on this. We\'ll touch there a little bit
later. Now let\'s get into the process of determining program
complexity. This is accomplished by reviewing eight major elements,
program elements, that are also found in chapter 6 of the IFPM standard.
These eight elements are: Program management, preparedness, program
interdependence, land management base, wildland fire, prescribed fire
and fuels management, aviation, prevention and mitigation \-- prevention
and mitigation or education.

Each of these elements contains each of the sub elements which contain
narrative descriptors. Many assumptions were made in developing these
descriptors which then became guiding principles. It\'s imperative that
these be fully understood before completing the analysis. Each of the
sub elements will be given a rating from 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest
complexity. This is accomplished simply by finding the narrative
descriptor that most closely matches that element in your fire program.
Each of the elements and sub elements are then weighted to determine the
final program complexity level of low, moderate or high. There is an
excel spreadsheet available on the IFPM website to assist you in
completing the complexity analysis and this will be very helpful. I
can\'t emphasize enough how important it is to carefully read all of the
instructions.

Remember, additional instructions, guiding principles, as well as the
elements and sub elements can be found in chapter 6 of the IFPM
standard. Also, agency-specific instructions for implementation have
also been developed to help you in this process, and that information
can be found in appendix B of the IFPM implementation plan. Units are
required to complete their unit complexity analysis worksheet and send
it to their regional or state FMO by December 1st of this year, 2004.
The regional or state review of the complexity analysis for the \--
their geographic area needs to be completed and compiled by January
30th, 2005. So that\'s really all there is to the complexity analysis or
step 1 of the implementation of IFPM. Vince, back to you.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Beth. You know, the implementation plan really is a
nuts and bolts of this whole thing so we\'re going to have more time for
questions and answers after most of the steps. So if you have a question
or comment for us, please give us a call or send us a fax now. I don\'t
see any calls waiting or have any faxes in front of me, so, I\'ll ask a
couple of questions. Beth, how long do you think this complexity
analysis is going to take? It sounds like an involved process.

B. Lund: It does, but it\'s really not that complex. Basically I think
that once the unit program manager decides the staff that they think
should be involved in this, it shouldn\'t take the group more than a
day, once they\'re assembled to complete the analysis, really a few
hours should be adequate.

V. Galterio: I have a couple faxes here in front of me now. Let me take
this first one, again from the six rivers. It says please describe if
there is a crosswalk to some of these \-- the positions in the IFPM .
For example, wildland fire operations specialist, unit fire program
manager, what is our district FMO\'s assistant district FMO\'s hotshot
superintendents, hotshot squad bosses, where do they fit in. Kevin, do
you want to answer that one?

K. Conn: Vince, yes, I can. The position crosswalks were designed using
standard position descriptions for each of the federal agencies. Many of
the unit or geographic area position descriptions weren\'t standard
positions. Henceforth, they weren\'t \-- won\'t show up on the
crosswalk. I encourage individuals to sit down and read the position
descriptions that the individuals are currently under and compare them
to the 14 key fire management positions. Also, more information on this
subject will be covered here a little later in the broadcast.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Kevin. Got another question here. Beth, how about
this one for you. If the first complexity analysis shows a unit as
moderate and the program shows later \-- the program grows later to a
higher complexity, will positions then need to meet the higher
qualifications? Let\'s just stick to that question.

B. Lund: Well, I\'ll take a stab at that, Vince. So if I understand your
question, say, a unit was moderate to begin with and then perhaps two
units got combined and it \-- it grew and became a more complex
situation. I think in that case, yes, then you would reevaluate and do a
new complexity analysis once the unit is reinvented or things get more
complicated or grow pup.

V. Galterio: How about a time frame to meet that higher level?

B. Lund: You know, that I really don\'t know that I have a solid answer.
I do know that all of these IFPM standards need to be met by October
1st, 2009. And that is a firm date. So that\'s about all I can say about
that particular question. I don\'t think there is any flexibility there.

V. Galterio: A third quick part to this is how often a complexity
analysis done?

B. Lund: The complexity analysis should only be done once, in my
opinion. As the previous question asked, unless things change with the
unit. But I would think the complexity analysis would be done once and
that should be sufficient unless the situation changes.

V. Galterio: Thank you to you \-- looks like J.R. from the BLM Idaho
state office. Let\'s go to a call and let\'s take Barb in
Charlottesville. Barb, are you there?

Caller: Yes, I am. Hello.

V. Galterio: I can hear you. What\'s your question?

Caller: We\'re turning down the sound here. That will help. The
prevention and education special positions \-- excuse me \--
particularly those in regional offices have a very different bent from
many of the direct fire line positions. In the selective factors it
talked about education and experience. The degree had a clever \"or\"
statement which is related positions appropriate to the position. Do you
see these as being, let\'s say, liberally described given the now lack
of knowledge where funding might come from to make up some gaps or has
there been any discussion on this?

V. Galterio: Kevin or Cindy?

I can attempt that, Vince. He we haven\'t really discussed in detail
related, but you have to keep in mind related discipline goes back
directly to the position that you\'re filling. So you have to look at
what courses would be related to the position. So we can\'t necessarily
be very, very liberal with that. We still need to stay within the
standard.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Cindy. How about this one. This is an interesting
fax I have in front of me. We\'ll give this one to Kevin. Will there be
across the board pay increases with the new standards and/or positions?
And the second part is to red cart qualifications count towards the
standards?

K. Conn: Vince, I can answer that question. In the IFPM standard, grade
levels are listed, but those are minimum recommended grade levels. Going
back to a human resources and classification side, that is what is going
to determine the GS level for a given position. As far as the NWCG red
card or red card qualifications, yes there are \-- or NWCG
qualifications for each of the 14 key management \-- fire management
positions.

V. Galterio: Cindy, let me give you this question. Another fax here.
Thank you for all these coming in. I can\'t tell who a lot of the faxes
are from. That last one was from the UMQUAT national forest. Here\'s one
from Coconino. It says the government will pay for personnel in affected
positions to go back to college or sit just going to pay for NWCG
training?

It should pay for whatever is necessary to get that individual totally
qualified for the position that they\'re going to be moving into. So if
that includes going to college, paying for college courses, yes, that
would be included, as well as the NWCG courses.

V. Galterio: How about this part of it, Cindy: a person in a position
that is going to a 401 series has three years or is it five years to
meet the standard? Testify until October 1st of 2009 to meet all of the
qualify indications. The three years relates back to the competencies.
The five-year time frame is for the qualifications, which now are less
than five years now, but October 1st of 2009 is the deadline.

V. Galterio: Thank you. Here\'s another complexity question for Beth.
What are the ramifications of a person applying for a position, I.E., a
GS-7 on a low complexity unit to a higher grade level on a
high-complexity unit? Doesn\'t this break a rung in the career ladder
1234.

B. Lund: Boy, I might need a little help from Cindy on this one from the
H.R. perspective, but I would think that if you\'re applying for a
position, you know, you would be deemed eligible to apply for that from
\-- through the normal human resources channels, and if the position
were, maybe, example, flown as \-- you know, a dual \-- like an 8/9,
then you would certainly be given time to meet those standards. I hope
that\'s answered the question. I don\'t know if Cindy has anything to
add. I think you answered it the best that we can at this time. We might
need more information to answer that more fully. Hopefully we\'ve
answered your question.

B. Lund: I guess I would add one more thing, Vince. The bottom line is
after the date of October 1st here that just passed, everyone applying
for new positions under IFPM must be fully qualified basically for the
positions. So I\'d just add that.

V. Galterio: Thank you. Here\'s \-- we\'re running out of time here, but
let me try to get in one more from the six rivers, and, again, thank you
to the Durango dispatch center for sending that one in. Certain time
lines have been established in implementing the plan. Will there be
additional dates established to monitor progress?

I can take a stab at that. Really this is going to be discussed a little
bit more in depth later on in the broadcast as far as monitoring, but I
would just say at this point that it\'s going to be the supervisor\'s
responsibility of individuals to monitor their progress towards this,
and, yes, there may be data calls and other things to monitor the
overall progress in all five agencies getting this IFPM implemented by
October 1st of 2009.

V. Galterio: I would also add that there is a time line in the
implementation plan, and we\'re going to be drawing your attention to
that a little later in the program. Let me try this one. Can you or your
panel please clarify whether the prescribed fire and fuels manager
position standards apply to the geographic area level positions? I.E.,
regional or state office prescribed fire fuels manager? Or if those
standards apply only to the unit zone level of fire \-- of prescribed
fire and fuels positions? That was from Bob, the BLM New Mexico state
office.

K. Conn: I\'ll take a stab at that, Vince. The important thing to
remember here is going back to the crosswalk process. Those individuals
that are in similar situations need to sit down with their position
descriptions and basically compare those position descriptions to one of
the 14 key fire management positions and see where they shake out.
Again, a little bit later in the broadcast we\'re going to sit down and
cover this topic in more depth, but crosswalk is the key to that answer.
Hopefully we \-- that clears things up for you, Bob. Vince?

V. Galterio: Thanks, Bob. Thanks Bob in New Mexico. We\'re going to move
on. Those were all great questions, and we appreciate them coming in. I
think we got to at least one part of everybody\'s fax. Some had some
second parts, but we\'ll use them if we have some more time later on.
Let\'s move onto the next step and that\'s the position identification
process. Kevin, you want to tell us what\'s involved with this step?

K. Conn: I would love to, Vince. First of all, we\'ve already had
several questions come up involving the crosswalk process. Members of
all five federal agencies sat down and did a crosswalk comparing
standard agency PDs to the key \-- 14 key fire management positions.
Where determinations were made that those PDs crosswalked over to one of
the 14 key fire management positions, they were indicated in a table in
appendix C6 your plan. Not all PDs were covered in this process.
Throughout the agencies, many nonstandard position descriptions were
used, and just due to the shear volume of PDs out on the ground we were
not able to analyze all of those. Another key point in this process is
that it\'s the FMOs, or fire management officer\'s responsibility to sit
down and do this crosswalk. The first thing this individual is going to
need is a current organization chart with all positions that are
currently on the staff.

As I mentioned before, in appendix C of your plan there is a position
crosswalk. Cindy, if you would put an example up on the overhead. And I
understand this is hard to view, but this is just giving you an idea of
what you\'re going to be looking at in the plan. It basically shows the
14 key fire management positions as well as agency standard PDs located
in column 4. If you sit down and look through your current position
descriptions, and they are listed, and crosswalk them over to one of the
14 key fire management positions, your job is done for that individual.
In the event that nonstandard position descriptions are present, your
job becomes a little bit harder. You need to sit down with those
position descriptions and read through and compare them to the 14 key
fire management positions. There are a couple of points that I need to
stress here. You\'re not going to be able to find perfect match in
between the PD that your individuals are currently under to one of the
14 key fire management positions.

What we\'re looking for is an 80% similarity. The other thing you need
to remember is the primary intent of the position. What is that person
doing in their day-to-day duties and how does that compare to the 14 key
fire management positions. An example of this that is not unique to any
one agency is the assistant fire management officer position. In some
cases, that position may crosswalk over to a wildland fire operation
specialist. In other cases, that position may crosswalk over to a unit
fire program manager. It depends on the duties and the scope of work
that that individual is performing, day to day activities. Collateral
duty employees also pose a unique problem in this process. If
individuals are spending any amount of fire time or their work time
performing in one of the 14 key fire management positions, they are
still going to be held to the IFPM standard for that position.
Regardless of what percentage of time is actually spent doing that
particular job.

In this process, position descriptions weren\'t developed for all 14 of
the key fire management positions. Helicopter managers, geographic area
fire program managers, unit level fire program managers \-- excuse me,
national level fire program managers and individuals above the GS12
level, PDs were not developed. At that level the duties much those
individuals vary so much agency to agency that they were not addressed.
The important point to note is that those individuals are still going to
be held to the IFPM standard for those positions. In appendix C a form
is available of the implementation plan to record your findings. Cindy,
could you show that form on the overhead? Basically all this form is
doing is showing the current position description that an individual is
currently working under, what that position crosswalks over to, and
their name and some other information. It\'s just a form of record
keeping. Important things to remember also is that the FMO needs to sit
down and analyze all standard and nonstandard PDs for individuals on
their unit and all positions above the GS-5 level. Once this process is
complete, the individual \-- individuals will know what IFPM standards
they need to meet if they fall into one of the 14 key fire management
positions. Back to you, Vince.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Kevin. This step has a second part to it. Now
we\'re going to go to Cindy who is going to talk us to about the second
part, which is the incumbent declaration. That\'s right, there is a
second part, it\'s called the incumbent declaration. The declaration is
a self-certification of your current qualifications. The FMO will assist
the employees listed on the unit position identification worksheet,
which Kevin just talked about, with the completion of an incumbent
declaration. The incumbent declarations can also be found in appendix C
of the implementation plan. There are two versions of this declaration.
One for the professional and scientific or 401 series, and one for the
technician or 455 and 462 series.

Let\'s take a quick look at what the declarations look like. Over here
on the overhead you\'ll see just the top portion of what has been
developed for the 401 or professional/scientific types positions. This
basically \-- it consists of several pages and covers all aspects of the
401 series such as specialist experience and education. Now we\'ll take
a quick look at the one designed for the 455 and 462 series. This page
\-- this declaration basically consists of one page and covers only the
selected factors outlined in the IFPM standard. You will need to
complete the declaration for the position you are currently in or the
position you are identified to move into. After completion by the
employee and their supervisor, the unit position identification
worksheet, which Kevin talked about, and the incumbent declarations must
be submitted with the required supporting documentation to the human
resources office for final qualification determination. The timetable
for this process can be found on page 14 of the IFPM standard
implementation plan. That\'s about it. Vince?

V. Galterio: Thanks, Cindy. Once again we would like to take some time
to answer any questions you have to this point. So give us a call or
send us a fax and we\'ll get it on the air. I have a fax here and it
says \-- this is a question from NIFC. It says will coordination between
neighbor neighbor \-- neighbor to neighbor, example, BLM district next
to BIA agency, will complexity determinations be the same? Beth, you
want to try that? It sounds like two different agencies right next to
each other maybe with similar programs, will complexity determinations
be the same?

B. Lund: I\'ll take a shot at that for sure. I guess the way the
complexity analysis is built, it is fairly agency specific as far as the
reporting process. So there will be leveling done in checking for
consistency at the geographic area level for each agency. Now, as far as
across agencies, theoretically, if a person follows the complexity
guide, these should be very similar. The descriptors are very \-- very
down to earth and straightforward. So I would say they should be but I
can\'t totally answer how across agency leveling would be done after it
gets to the geographic area level.

V. Galterio: I\'m going to go back to a second part of a fax that we
have from the six rivers national forest. And the second part was, has
there been a consideration of an alternative strategy should the number
of position vacancies not match the number of qualified personnel? So we
don\'t have enough vacant \-- we don\'t have enough qualified personnel
to fill the vacancies, I\'m assuming when we start advertising things in
401, what\'s going to happen?\
I\'ll take a shot at that, Vince. What will be covered more in detail
later in the broadcast is the availability to run concurrent
announcements with 401 and 455 and 462 series which will be covered
later in the broadcast. That has been made available to us during the
implementation period.

V. Galterio: Here\'s another one for you to try. Thanks to the six
rivers and NIFC for those last two faxes. If we\'re required to maintain
qualifications as firefighters, squad bosses, et cetera, why are we not
eligible for \-- looks like U.C. early retirement \-- Sorry, 6C, are why
we not eligible for 6C. Sounds like some people have to maintain
qualifications as firefighters but they\'re not in early retirement.\
You\'re thinking they\'re not in a special retirement covered position.\
Right. Maybe it\'s the timber marker who is a firefighter, too but not
in a covered position. I don\'t know if I understand the question
totally but I\'ll take a shot at it here. There are a lot of people out
there in what we call secondary covered positions that are \-- that do
have some IFPM standards that they\'ll have to be \-- have to meet, and
they are not covered, and they still \-- there\'s no real straight up
answer for that other than some people are eligible for early retirement
and some people are not, and \-- but you still have to meet the standard
and it doesn\'t mean you\'re going to be eligible for early retirement
just because you have to meet a new standard.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Cindy. Kevin, did you have any additional --

K. Conn: I would like to add something. From a collateral duty
standpoint, if those individuals are going out on the ground and
performing on the line fire duties, the important thing to remember
about maintaining the NWCGQUALS if those folks choose to do that, that
they are a link in the safety chain and that\'s the whole reason behind
the IFPM, is safety. Keep that in mind.

V. Galterio: Let me throw on a follow-up to that collateral duty issue.
Is there a certain percentage of your position that would have to be
identified as collateral duty firefighter needs duties before it falls
into the IFPM standards?

K. Conn: No, Vince. There is not a percentage. If you are going out on
the line and performing the duties \-- for example, of an engine module
supervisor, you are still going to be held to the IFPM standards for
that position, regardless of the amount of time \-- that you actually
spend out on the ground.

V. Galterio: Thanks. Here\'s another question from NIFC from the great
basin training center. Could we start a TFM program at our local level?

B. Lund: Boy, I don\'t \-- I\'ll \-- I\'m not going to attempt to answer
that. I think that particular question would have to be referred up the
line through the training organization. I don\'t think any of us here on
the panel would specifically have that type of information. I do
recognize that there is going to be a larger call for courses like that
that will help to qualify folks for this IFPM standard. But I don\'t
know that we can answer that here.

V. Galterio: I would add that there are a lot of alternatives being
looked at to TFM, a lot of colleges are coming one other programs. So
keep your eyes open and you may see some things in the future. Let\'s go
to a telephone call. How about Todd in the black hills. Are you on the
line Todd?

Caller: Yes.

V. Galterio: What\'s your question?

Caller: If I understand correctly, for newly advertised positions,
selected individuals must meet the IFPM standard. How will that be
impacted by veterans preference?

V. Galterio: That\'s a good question, Todd. Thank you. Cindy?\
I\'ll go ahead and try and take that. Basically when we\'re running \--
veterans preference only applies to announcements run open and
competitively or commonly referred to as delegated exam or DEU. Veterans
preference will still apply but they\'ll still have to meet selective
factor. This do not meet the selective placement factor, they will not
be eligible for referral. Veterans placement does not apply under merit
rule.

V. Galterio: Thank you, Cindy, and thank you to Todd. I have another fax
here from NIFC. It says, you speak of getting education for positions
that are 401. What about firefighters that are not in a 401 series job?
Are these people able to get education support to become qualified?

B. Lund: I\'ll try that one. If you\'re not \-- if you\'re determined
ultimately that in this process you\'re still in a technical position,
you will somewhat be on your own, I guess, as it were. I don\'t want
that to sound negative, but I think it\'s well recognized that now the
career ladder for many folks in that situation has been changed or
modified a bit. So I believe that your agency will do everything as they
normally have to help you endeavor to meet those standards, but you
won\'t be treated the \-- the same as the incumbents who are in a
position that has switched over, much like myself. I\'m currently a 462
and will have to find a way to meet the 401 standard. So that\'s the
best I can do with that. I\'m sure the agencies will still support that
kind of thing.

V. Galterio: I\'ve got another fax here, and thanks to NIFC, I think,
for that last question. I have another fax here from the BLM in Coos
Bay. This is a good one for Beth, or maybe she\'ll want to give it to
the FMO trainee here. It says, who is doing the quality control on unit
FMO positions? I assume. So who is looking at the quality control of the
FMOs, the unit FMOs?

B. Lund: Well, I\'m going to try to interpret what the person is getting
at here in that they\'re probably saying, if a unit FMO decides they\'re
going to rate their unit as a high, and there may be some contention
that that\'s not the case, that is precisely the reason for all of the
units within a geographic area having to have those reviewed and
compared and leveled for consistency throughout that geographic area
agency specific. So that would in essence be the quality control there.
I think that it does state in the directions when you get in and read
the implementation plan that that is the reason for doing that, is
leveling that. And if a unit is in question by the geographic area, then
that FMO will be asked to proceed with further documentation as far as
why they rated their unit as such.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Beth. Another question here: what about positions
on my unit that I believe would not match one of the 14 key positions,
such as fire ecologists or fire program assistants, what happens to
those positions? Are they covered under the standard?

K. Conn: I can answer that. As far as those positions, fire ecologists,
fire archaeologists, there\'s variety of different positions that are
out there, but the key point to remember with the IFPM standard is that
we\'re looking at links in the safety chain. Those individuals that are
\-- are not in that chain, so to speak, are not identified in the IFPM
standard. Open flea that answers your \-- hopefully that answers your
questions.

V. Galterio: I don\'t have any more faxes or phone calls in front of me
right now. So please send them into us if you have some more questions.
But I would like to ask the panel here from the presentations you\'ve
given so far If you had any one point that you wanted to leave this
group with from the information that you\'ve given them, what would that
be, Kevin?

K. Conn: The thing that I would stress most is sit down and take the
time to do a good job on the position crosswalk. There\'s a lot of
nonstandard position descriptions out there across all agencies being
used. Sit down, take the time and analyze those position descriptions
and see where they crosswalk over to. It\'s a time consuming process but
doing a good job here is very important.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Kevin. Again, we have a few more minutes for some
questions or faxes. So feel free to send them in. Beth, with a would you
leave them with?

B. Lund: I guess I would say that \-- I guess I recognize there maybe
some concern out there due to the quick turnaround time on this
complexity analysis, but it really isn\'t that \-- I would urge you to
fully read all the instructions that we\'ve mentioned in the broadcast
here and not \-- it\'s not going to take that much. Get a few key
members of your staff together. I would urge the FMO to read through the
rating guide and be familiar with it. It really shouldn\'t take all that
much effort, but you want to be careful in making sure that you\'ve got
the right things. Also, when you\'re getting ready to do the complexity
analysis, you might want to make sure that you have tools like your fire
management plan, your NFMS information, your average tenure fire
occurrence records and things like that, but once you read through the
rating guide and descriptors, you\'ll be familiar with what kinds of

things you probably need to bring to the table that day when you go
through this process.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Beth. I do have a caller on the line, but first,
Cindy, would like to give you your opportunity, too, to leave this group
with something.

Just on the employee declaration that I spoke about, make sure that
you\'re as honest as possible with what you have done as far as your
experience, what education you have, because that\'s going to be used as
a tool to help you get qualified for the position that you\'re going to
be going into to meet the IFPM standards. So we shouldn\'t be
exaggerating if you\'ve done something or not done something because
that\'s going to be used to determine where \-- what areas you might be
lacking and need more experience in or more education in.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Cindy. Let\'s go to Debra at NIFC. Debra, are you
there?

Caller: I am there.

V. Galterio: Debra, what\'s your question?

Caller: Has there been any risk analysis done for the implementation
period when many highly qualified employees will need to be in school
during high fire danger times? For example, September?

V. Galterio: Good question, Debra.

B. Lund: I guess we\'ll take a stab at that. Maybe Kevin might have
something to add. I\'m not aware. I\'ve only been qualified myself by
saying I\'ve only been involved in depth here for the last few months as
far as the implementation part of this IFPM, and it has been in progress
for seven years, as Paul Broyles mentioned earlier. I would have assumed
that some amount of risk analysis has been done, but I don\'t know, I
really can\'t answer your question in depth as far as that. It\'s just
\-- again, as Kevin mentioned, safety is the key here. So I think as
unit program managers and all folks involved, we need to keep that in
mind and do what\'s necessary, but still do our job safely and
effectively. That\'s about all I can add.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Beth. Let\'s go to \-- thank you to Debra for the
question. Let\'s go to Wendy in region 5, Forest Service in region 5.
Wendy are you there?

Caller: Right here.

V. Galterio: What\'s your question?

Caller: At the risk of sounding stupid, at the regional level, we need
to be mirroring the complexity analysis and the review of all the
positions just as unit FMOs are doing, and then I have a second part of
the question, too, but if you could answer that one first, that would be
great.\
B. Lund: Was the question do you need to be mirroring this process?

Caller: Yes, at the regional level.

B. Lund: You know, I\'m going to take a stab at answering that, but I
think that the intent is, again, Kevin stressed it a come of times,
people that are links in the safety chain at the ground level is really
the focus for this. So I think at the regional level, and a come
questions have come in earlier regarding prevention specialists at the
region level and other such positions, I think some of those are going
to have to be hashed out in the geographic area but my initial response
to that is that not necessarily. And it was mentioned that there
weren\'t standard PDs developed above the GS12 level. Again, this is
designed for folks that are links in that chain to the ground, and
decision making type of things. So I think really the geographic areas
re emphasis here will be trying to level all the units once the
complexity analyses are done out on the units in their area. I hope that
answered the question.

Caller: Yes. I was thinking like safety officer positions would probably
need to be addressed, but \-- Then the second part of the question is, I
know that each agency is going through the same process, but as far as
like complexity analysis and maybe levels of complexity, is there some
review or someway that we can see if we\'re similar, say, a unit in the
Forest Service comes up with a low complexity but somehow right next
door the BLM comes one a high complexity. Is there someway to reconcile
that?

B. Lund: Well, I think that the best way to address that is, I know I
can relate it, I guess, to our unit on the Boise \-- we\'re working very
closely with the Bureau of Land Management next door to us with regard
to the implementation of FPA, for example, and I think that
communication and comparing notes would certainly be advisable in the
process. Of course, there are a variety of fuel types and different
cooperative agreements and things like that that come into play here. So
I didn\'t mean to oversimplify things earlier, but really the complexity
analysis was designed somewhat agency specific for the units, and I
think, although when we are working together with our neighbors, we need
to be comparing notes. That\'s about the best I can do with that one.

Caller: Thank you very much.

V. Galterio: Thank you, Wendy. Thanks, Beth. Here\'s a fax. What about
folks that have one of the 14 positions as a collateral duty, again,
Kevin, the number of national forests in the east and south have
district fire management officers, DFMOs, that perform fire related
duties in addition to being a technician, biologist, et cetera. Kevin,
again, the collateral duty question.

K. Conn: Yes, I can\'t stress this enough if individuals are acting in
one of the 14 key fire management positions for any percentage of time,
going back to the very basic example, engine module supervisor, and just
an example, if an individual is doing that, you know, in times of high
fire danger or along those lines, that individual is still required to
meet the IFPM standards for that position. Regardless of the amount of
time that those individuals are working.\
V. Galterio: Thanks, Kevin. And thanks to, looks like Mike, on the
Allegheny national forest for that one. Let go to another call. Barb
from the Park Service, looks like the northeast region, are you there,
Barb?

Caller: Yes, I am.

V. Galterio: What\'s your question?

Caller: You made several comments about the fire safety chain or the
chain of command within a fire. Basically how and why were the fire
education specialists identified in that chain? Recognizing we\'re all
committed to firefighter and public safety, but as far as our genuine
influence on a fire, it\'s pretty minimal.

V. Galterio: Thanks, Kevin. You want to try that?

K. Conn: I\'ll take a stab at that that the IFPM standard is looking at
14 key positions that are basically a link or a chain going towards on
the ground decisions. Fire education is involved in that, albeit, but is
not necessarily a direct link from the top to the bottom. I would like
to stress this is still a very important aspect of the IFPM. It was just
not identified as one of the 14 key positions related to safety. Vince?

V. Galterio: Thanks, Barb, for that question. Let\'s go to Angela with
the Park Service. Angela, are you there?

Caller: Yes.

V. Galterio: Good morning, Angela. What\'s your question?

Caller: I\'m sorry, there\'s a lime lag. First of all, our fire
education prevention specialists were identified as one of the 14 key
positions. Secondly, we were just discussing with human resources, if
the government has to provide the training, say, for instance, college
classes for us to get qualified, can we do that on government time? And
with government transportation? Vince, I\'ll try to take that one here.
I know that \-- if this is directly related to your job, it can be done
on government time. The transportation part, I don\'t think I can answer
that, but I know that you can do the training and the education on
government time if the class is during the middle of the day. I\'d have
to research the transportation part. Hopefully that answers your
question.

B. Lund: I guess I could add something there, because we\'ve gotten a
couple questions, again, I\'m not an expert in this area, I think some
of these things have to be addressed at the unit basis and make taken up
the chain and specific questions honed in on, but the question of
prevention and mitigation specialists and where they fit, when you do
your complexity analysis, for example, within \-- it\'s going to be a
sub element of the unit, the complexity will determine, of course, the
level of \-- the IFPM standard that that position has to meet. Also I
believe that those specialist positions may or may not require the 401
standard. They may end up being deemed a technical position. So there\'s
a lot of different factors in figuring out where your position fits on
the crosswalk that Kevin discussed, and I think that\'s the key there
with the prevention. I know there\'s probably a few questions out there.
But I can relate to some our prevention folks get out on the field and
do initial attack and things like that. So it\'s just depending on how
the unit sees those positions fitting into the whole process.

K. Conn: And one thing I\'ll emphasize again is the position crosswalk.
Folks need to sit down and look where you are position falls in. Some
education positions may be relevant directly related to fire and
crosswalk over and some may not. That\'s the important key to remember
here. Vince?

V. Galterio: Thanks, Kevin. I do have a couple more questions here, and
if there\'s some calls on there, the callers, if we don\'t get to you
because we\'re out every time right now for questions, you can fax them
in, and I will be holding onto the faxes we have for use later on in the
question and answer period but we won\'t lose your questions. So I want
to thank you again for all your questions and comments. There\'s been a
lot of participation, and really is helpful to us here as well as
getting your questions answered. At this point we\'re going to go off
the air and take a one-hour break. When we come back, we\'re going to go
over the remaining steps in the implementation process beginning with
step 3 and talk about recruitment and staffing. We\'ll go on the air
again at 1:00 p.m. mountain daylight time. We\'ll governor you a short
test signal before we resume the training. There\'s a lot more coming
up. We\'ll see you again in about an hour.