A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

Part 1: National Challenges - Managing Wildfire on the National Landscape......... 3

Part 2: Guiding Principles and Core Values ............................................................ 6

Part 3: National Goals and Performance Measures................................................ 7

Part 4: Governance................................................................................................. 9

Part 5: Phase II: Development of Regional Strategies and Assessments, 

Phase III: National Trade-Off Analysis and Execution........................................ 10

Appendix A: Comparative Risk Assessment ........................................................... 13

Appendix B: Glossary.............................................................................................. 33

Appendix C: Acronym List....................................................................................... 34

Appendix D: References ......................................................................................... 35

Appendix E: Wildland Fire Leadership Council Membership .................................. 36

Appendix F: Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee............................................ 37

Appendix G: Project Management Team ................................................................ 38

Appendix H: Wildland Fire Executive Council Membership .................................... 39

Appendix I: Process Overview ................................................................................ 40
Rural firefighters provide structure protection during the Castle Rock fire in Idaho. Credit: NIFC, Kari Greer.
1

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Executive Summary

Addressing wildfire is not simply a fire management, fire operations, or wildland-urban interface problem — it is 

a larger, more complex land management and societal issue. The vision for the next century is to: 

Safely and effectively extinguish fire, when needed; use fire where allowable; manage 

our natural resources; and as a Nation, live with wildland fire.

Three primary factors have been identified as presenting the greatest challenges and the greatest opportunities 

for making a positive difference in addressing the wildland fire problems to achieve this vision. They are:

•	 Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes. The strategy must recognize the current lack 

of ecosystem health and variability of this issue from geographic area to geographic area. Because 

landscape conditions and needs vary depending on local climate and fuel conditions, among other 

elements, the strategy will address landscapes on a regional and sub-regional scale.

•	 Creating fire-adapted communities. The strategy will offer options and opportunities to engage 

communities and work with them to become more resistant to wildfire threats. 

•	 Responding to Wildfires. This element considers the full spectrum of fire management activities 

and recognizes the differences in missions among local, state, tribal and Federal agencies. The 

strategy offers collaboratively developed methodologies to move forward.

Three Primary Factors

Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes, Creating Fire-Adapted 

Communities and Responding to Wildfires
Cohesive

Str

ategy

2

The Cohesive Strategy is defined by three phases. This phased approach allows stakeholders to both 

systematically and thoroughly develop a dynamic approach to planning for, responding to, and recovering 

from a wildland fire incident. The three phases include:

•	 Phase I: National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy

•	 Phase II: Development of Regional Strategies and Assessments

•	 Phase III: National Trade-Off Analysis and Execution

A cohesive strategy must commit to this shared national vision for present and future wildland fire and 

land management activities in the United States. It must build on the foundation of other efforts to 

establish direction for wildland fire management in America — the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy 

and Program Review; the documents that comprised the National Fire Plan; A Collaborative Approach 

for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year Strategy; both editions 

of the Quadrennial Fire Review; Mutual Expectations for Preparedness and Suppression in the Interface; 

A Call to Action; and Wildland Fire Protection and Response in the United States, The Responsibilities, 

Authorities, and Roles of Federal, State, Local and Tribal Governments. 

The past two decades have seen a rapid escalation of severe fire behavior, home and property losses, 

higher costs, increased threats to communities and worsening conditions on the land. These trends call for 

a broad-based, collaborative and cohesive response to better address the mounting challenges. Congress, 

the fire community, and the public have recognized a need for a new strategy, a new path forward and 

perhaps, a new way of thinking about wildland fire, recognizing a one-size-fits-all approach does not work 

across the Nation.

The challenges of fire management are formidable and growing more complex. The Nation has diverse 

landscapes, demographics, and social values; and because of this, a national strategy must address these 

differences. It will take a united, comprehensive effort to successfully address these issues. 

The key to a cohesive strategy is its inclusiveness. A national strategy must be just that — one that has 

applicability and relevance across the board from the small, rural fire department in Maine, to a large city 

in California, to a state forestry department in North Carolina or a tribal community in the Midwest, as well 

as to the Federal agencies. Simply including all stakeholders is not enough. A strategy, shaped by a shared 

vision, requires building new relationships among those stakeholders. Skepticism and issues of trust must 

be recognized and overcome; all voices must be acknowledged and heard. 

The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009 (the FLAME Act) was signed 

by the President in November 2009. The Act states, in part, “Not later than one year after the date of the 

enactment, the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to Congress a report 

that contains a cohesive wildfire management strategy.” The FLAME Act directs that a cohesive strategy 

be developed addressing seven specific topic areas ranging from how best to allocate fire budgets at the 

Federal level to assessing risk to communities, and prioritizing hazardous fuels project funds. The FLAME 

Act is the catalyst for bringing fire leadership at all levels together and prompting a new approach to how 

wildland fire is managed. This new approach will guide the development of a national cohesive strategy 

that paves the way for developing a national wildland fire management policy.
3

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Firefighters talk to a home owner in the wildland urban interface 

on a fire in Idaho. Credit: Kari Greer, NIFC.

Part 1:

National Challenges - Managing Wildfire on the National Landscape

Wildland fire management response in the United States has evolved into an increasingly complex and 

multifaceted system. Climate change, fuels management, expanding wildland-urban interface and associated 

infrastructure, budgets, along with mission differences are some of the challenges facing wildland fire managers 

today. The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy seeks to ensure that the values and 

concerns of the public and all governments are accurately understood and reflected. This demands a more 

comprehensive understanding of the diverse perspectives that underlie this situation – encompassing both the 

social/human and science dimensions. 

Managers and natural resource experts recognize that the creation of a truly national cohesive strategy will 

include not only the seven elements identified in the FLAME Act but must also envision a broader, overarching 

and comprehensive consideration of all lands and fire programs. Therein lies the primary challenges facing 

wildfire managers, land managers, and communities in developing a strategy that meets local, regional and 

national needs.

Wildfire knows no boundaries; it does not recognize jurisdictional responsibilities. A single wildfire often crosses 

private, county, state, tribal and Federal lands and threatens communities, infrastructure, economies, and 

valuable natural resources that affect citizens, landowners and fire managers across all landscapes. Significant 

issues facing all departments and agencies are the effects of climate change, fuels management, and protecting 

resource values. Yet, there are critical differences in agency/department cultures and missions, and funding 

levels across fire management entities creating national challenges for all.

National Challenges

Engaging the public. While building and 

landscaping codes can aid in reducing the 

risk to homes and communities, additional 

actions must be taken by individual property 

owners. One of the leading challenges fire 

managers face is engaging the public to a level 

where individuals and communities assume 

responsibility for making their own properties 

fire-resistant. Measures, taken prior to a wildfire 

occurrence, by property owners on their own 

properties, result in the most effective efforts in 

protecting homes and communities. A national 

cohesive strategy will build upon earlier efforts, 

as an effective means to engage the public. 

More resilient landscapes in dynamic environments. Declining vegetative health across the national 

landscape has contributed to the increasing risk of catastrophic wildfire which threatens landscapes and 

communities. These factors — including weather variability, fire exclusion, spread of insects and diseases 

and non-native species, changing land use, fragmentation, and urbanization — pose a significant challenge to 

establishing and maintaining healthy, resilient landscapes and communities.

Roles and responsibilities. Managing the Nation’s wildfires is a comprehensive undertaking. Taking initial 

action at the most local level, managing large complexes of wildfires threatening communities, infrastructure 

and valuable natural resources, and all actions in between, are responsibilities of the Nation’s fire community. 

A workable strategy must include and define the varying roles and responsibilities of fire managers at all levels 

and determine how those levels blend together to achieve the national goal of cohesive wildfire management.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

4

Firefighters watch a plume of smoke during a WUI fire. Credit: FWS.

Agency and mission differences. A local fire department’s primary mission may be structural in nature, but 

its mission often includes initial attack on wildfire ignitions within its jurisdiction. State forestry agencies are 

bound to their mission of suppressing all fires threatening state and private timber and other resources. Federal 

agencies have a broader mission on public land and may employ alternative fire management strategies. 

Federal agencies also have a special trust obligation to Native Americans, their land and reserved rights. 

An effective cohesive strategy must guide all organizations to recognize and accept each others’ management 

differences and promote a more cohesive response to the wildfire management challenges across all 

jurisdictions.

Building on past success and shared understanding. The Nation’s wildland fire community has greatly 

evolved since the days when firefighting resources were not shared, and fire crews would not cross 

jurisdictional boundaries to suppress a fire. Gone, too, are the days when Federal and state or local firefighters 

had no capability to communicate with each other on the fire line. While great strides have been made in 

collaboration and cooperation, there continues to be differences of perspective and associated tensions which 

must be addressed and resolved in order for a cohesive strategy to be effective.

Shared Assumptions

In spite of differences in culture, responsibilities, missions, funding and other elements of their respective fire 

programs, fire managers, at all levels, agree there are commonalities to be recognized in a national cohesive 

strategy. Addressing wildfire is not simply a fire management, fire operations or wildland-urban interface 

problem – it is a much larger, more complex land management and societal issue.

Insufficient active management and the need for a better understanding of fire’s natural role in landscape 

health must be reflected in a cohesive strategy 

as a trigger for change. There are social and 

regulatory challenges to the active management 

of landscapes and biomass utilization. Because 

of fire’s impact on air quality and water resources, 

and on commodity and community values, there 

are regulatory and social constraints on its use and 

management. 

A national cohesive strategy must recognize 

the differences and tensions that exist among 

the partners and stakeholders and why those 

differences exist (e.g., different priorities, 

planning processes, legal mandates, values and 

resources) and seek to resolve them. It must build 

stronger relationships based on the successes of 

intergovernmental agreements for mutual response; 

incorporate cost and data sharing; include 

community protection planning (Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans or their equivalent), regional fire 

risk assessments, State and Forest Resource 

Assessments and Strategies; and encourage 

increased use of partnerships, grants and other 

funding opportunities. Each of these tools can be 

used to build stronger collaborative processes and 

move toward shared understandings that resolve 

conflicts and enhance partnerships among multiple 

landowners across all lands and jurisdictions. 
5

Cohesive

Str

ategy

To achieve workable solutions, a cohesive strategy must ensure the human dimension is accorded equal weight 

with the physical and ecological science dimensions of wildfire. A national strategy will recognize the differences 

among the diverse areas of the Country – and promote public acceptance and understanding – i.e., how 

people filter, receive, accept, embrace and take action before, during, and after wildfires. True ownership for a 

“national” strategy is the means to the transformational process envisioned for landscapes and communities. 

This house is inside the perimeter of the Fourmile Canyon Fire near Boulder, Colorado, in the wildlandurban interface. The 7,000 acre fire claimed nearly 170 houses in the first days of the blaze. The owners 

properly prepared their land for the potential of wildfire, including building with fire resistant materials, and 

preparing defensible, fuel-minimized spaces in the areas surrouding their home. Credit: Matt Slaby, NIFC.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

6

Part 2:

Guiding Principles and Core Values

A component of building on success includes moving beyond organizationally specific sets of guidelines that direct 

Federal, state, tribal or local fire policies. The following guiding principles were crafted through discussions with 

Federal, state, tribal, and local governmental and non-governmental organizational representatives. The goal 

was to build an overarching set of principles that would apply to all stakeholders in the wildland fire management 

community – and would also reach across the different elements, from resilient landscapes and fire-adapted 

communities to wildfire response. In developing regional strategies, these guiding principles and core values must 

be considered:

• Reducing risk to firefighters and the public is the first priority in every fire management activity. 

• Sound risk management is the foundation for all management activities.

• Actively manage the land to make it more resilient to disturbance, in accordance with management 

objectives. 

• Improve and sustain both community and individual responsibilities to prepare for, respond to and 

recover from wildfire through capacity-building activities.

• Rigorous wildfire prevention programs are supported across all jurisdictions.

• Wildland fire, as an essential ecological process and natural change agent, may be incorporated into 

the planning process and wildfire response.

• Fire management decisions are based on the best available science, knowledge and experience, and 

used to evaluate risk versus gain.

• Federal agencies, local, state, tribal governments support one another with wildfire response, including 

engagement in collaborative planning and the decision-making processes that take into account all 

lands and recognize the interdependence and statutory responsibilities among jurisdictions.

• Where land and resource management objectives differ, prudent and safe actions must be taken 

through collaborative fire planning and suppression response to keep unwanted wildfires from 

spreading to adjacent jurisdictions. 

• Safe aggressive initial attack is often the best suppression strategy to keep unwanted wildfires small 

and costs down. 

• Fire management programs and activities are economically viable and commensurate with values 

to be protected, land and resource management objectives, and social and environmental quality 

considerations.

The West Cinder prescribed fire in Idaho burned cheat grass and tumble mustard. 

Credit: Kari Greer, NIFC.
7

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Part 3:

National Goals and Performance Measures

Wildfire crosses and affects all lands and resources regardless of jurisdiction and ownership. Each responding 

organization has a role in working together to protect lives, property and resources. Concise, mutually accepted 

goals and guiding principles are the foundation of a cohesive strategy. Clear accountability will ultimately 

promote transparency and aid oversight during the implementation phase. These overarching, broad goals and 

performance measures will be used as a foundation as regional tasks and actions and performance measures 

are developed in Phase II. Measurement of risk will be the common thread. Probability and consequences will 

be determined by region to inform this risk calculation. 

Restore and Maintain Landscapes:

GOAL: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire-related disturbances in accordance with 

management objectives.

Outcome-based Performance Measure: 

• Risk to landscapes is diminished.

National output-based metrics, in support of the national measure, will center on risk to ecosystems at 

landscape scales. 

Fire Adapted Communities:

GOAL: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property.

Outcome-based Performance Measure:

• Risk of wildfire impacts to communities is diminished. 

• Individuals and communities accept and act upon their responsibility to prepare their properties for 

wildfire.

• Jurisdictions assess level of risk and establish roles and responsibilities for mitigating both the 

threat and the consequences of wildfire. 

• Effectiveness of mitigation activities is monitored, collected and shared. 

National output-based metrics will include indicators relevant to communities with mitigation plans and 

planned or completed treatments.

Wildfire Response:

GOAL: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, efficient risk-based 

wildfire management decisions.

Outcome-based Performance Measure:

• Injuries and loss of life to the public and firefighters are diminished.

• Response to shared-jurisdiction wildfire is efficient and effective.

• Pre-fire multi-jurisdictional planning occurs.

National output-based metrics will reflect trends in changing risk to support the national measure. 

Indicators will include pre-season agreements and annual operating plans, integrated wildfire response 

scenarios, and shared training. Risk exposure to firefighters will be based on a balanced consideration 

of values protected and the probability of success. 
Cohesive

Str

ategy

8

Monitoring and Evaluation

Understandable, verifiable metrics will be developed in Phase II and Phase III to assess outcomes, ensure 

transparency, and provide oversight to the three primary factors of the Cohesive Strategy – restoring and 

maintaining landscapes, achieving fire-adapted communities, and responding to wildfire. Mechanisms 

for monitoring, evaluating, acquiring feedback, and sharing lessons-learned will be used to enable and 

encourage more timely adaptive management of the approaches and activities identified during the 

implementation phase of this strategy. Monitoring and evaluation of strategies and their effectiveness will be 

essential to the long-term success of a national cohesive strategy. Monitoring metrics will be developed to 

address trends over time.

A prescribed fire in Palm Beach County, Florida, helped to reduce the threat of wildfire for the surrounding community and improve wildlife habitat. 
9

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Part 4:

Governance

The Cohesive Strategy is designed to account for many of the needs, challenges, opportunities, and issues for 

all wildfire organizations, at all levels, across the Country. The Cohesive Strategy is dynamic and responsive to 

changes in the wildland fire community and environment. The FLAME Act requires that the Cohesive Strategy 

be revised at least every 5 years to consider changes with respect to landscape, vegetation, climate, and 

weather. The next two phases will address regional and local issues, with full implementation planned. For 

those reasons alone, the need for the Cohesive Strategy governance will continue. 

Overall Governance of the Cohesive Strategy

The Secretaries of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) ultimately govern the development and implementation of the Cohesive Strategy; Congress exercises 

oversight. The Secretaries delegated the responsibility of overseeing development of the Cohesive Strategy 

to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC). The WFLC is an intergovernmental council of Federal, state, 

tribal, county, local and municipal government officials convened by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, 

and Homeland Security to ensure consistent implementation of wildland fire policies, goals and management 

activities. The WFLC will remain as the body with oversight and decision-making authority through all phases of 

the cohesive strategy process. For a list of WFLC members, see Appendix E.

Future Governance

The WFLC designated the Wildland Fire Executive Council (WFEC) to oversee implementation of the 

Cohesive Strategy. The WFEC’s organizational structure closely mirrors that of WFLC; thus, the same broad 

representation of local, state, tribal and Federal organizations remains intact. As Phase II of the Cohesive 

Strategy begins, regional strategy committees will be established. Local and regional plans and direction will 

take form during Phase II. Regions may elect to establish sub-regions to ensure inclusivity. The delegation 

of responsibility and authority for the Cohesive Strategy ensures a voice in governance at all levels and fire 

jurisdictions. For a list of WFEC members, see Appendix H.

Regional Strategy Committees

Regional Strategy Committees will 

include members from the DOI 

agencies, USDA Forest Service 

(Forest Service), tribes, state 

foresters, and representatives of the 

following elected officials: a governor, 

county commissioner, and mayor. 

Additional members may be added to 

the regional strategy committees as 

the committees see fit. One strategy 

committee will be established for 

each region. The regional strategy 

committee will be responsible for the 

identification of appropriate analysis 

areas. The regional committees will 

utilize expertise and information from 

existing entities within the region—

scientists, traditional ecological 

knowledge sources, land managers, 

and other experts in wildland 

management, when conducting 

analyses for these areas. 

A member of the Jackson hotshot crew cuts through thick brush while 

working on a hazardous fuels reduction project in Florida.Credit: BLM.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

10

Part 5:

Phase II: Development of Regional Strategies and Assessments

Phase III: National Trade-Off Analysis and Execution

The Cohesive Strategy must reconcile concerns about wildfire risk, values at risk, and appropriate response to 

wildfire at different temporal and geographic scales. There is a need to balance a uniform evaluation of wildfire 

risk across the Nation, while ensuring that local and regional concerns and values are neither compromised nor 

overlooked. The full development of a national cohesive strategy will include a number of regional strategies 

supported by local and regional priorities, which may vary depending on local and regional concerns. 

Wildfire Risk Assessment Process

A science-based framework will allow for systematic evaluation of a range of alternative future scenarios and 

land management options at national, regional, sub-regional and local scales. The wildfire risk assessment 

process provides a template that allows wildfire risk maps to link the probability of fire and fire intensity with 

potential resource benefits and loss of resources. The assessment process will be temporally scalable by 

including short-term versus long-term trade-off analyses. The process also will be geographically scalable by 

using nationally consistent data for coarse-scale analysis and refining data as the national template is adapted 

at regional and sub-regional assessment levels. The analyses results can be used at the national level by 

policy-makers and at regional and local scales by planners and managers to prioritize projects and investments 

to reduce wildfire risk. The process can be used to weigh management options within the context of land and 

resource management plans, collaborative frameworks, community protection plans, and other landscape 

planning efforts. The risk assessment process is more fully explored in Appendix A – A Comparative Risk 

Assessment.

Regional Strategies and Assessments

Regions

Three major regions of the Country have been 

identified—the Northeast, Southeast, and West. 

The Regional Strategy Committee will rely on 

information for all lands that is readily available to 

conduct wildfire risk analyses. These analyses will 

be informed by State Forest Resource Assessments 

and Strategies, Regional Wildfire Risk Assessments, 

Fire Program Analysis (FPA), resource and 

land management plans, and the Ecosystem 

Management Decision System (EMDS). Each region 

will use nationally consistent performance measures 

that translate to regional performance metrics. 

Each region will identify strategies that consist 

of a portfolio of activities that address social and 

environmental values, risks and investments and 

will document progress and accomplishments. This 

information will identify the total multi-jurisdictional effort in meeting stated goals. 

Regional strategies, which include the identification of barriers to the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

activities, will be used to inform a national trade-off analysis and identify the most effective allocation of funds. 

Regional Strategy Committees may delineate sub-regional areas for finer-scale analyses to inform priorities. 

Analyses at national, regional, sub-regional and local levels will be used to refine subsequent analyses at all 

three levels. 

Figure 1. In Phase II, three regions have been identified by WFLC — 

Northeast, Southeast, and West.
11

Cohesive

Str

ategy

The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy intends to 

consistently address risks at multiple scales. There are analysis cycles 

that occur at the national, regional (and sub-regional), and local levels. It is 

important that linkages exist between each level from a top-down as well 

as a bottom-up perspective. Local risks are managed through local risk 

analyses/decision-making; regional risks are managed through regional 

risk analyses/decision-making; and national risks are managed through 

national risk analyses/decision-making. National goals and priorities 

influence regional goals and priorities, and national and regional goals 

and priorities influence local goals and priorities. Likewise, local goals 

and priorities influence regional/national goals and priorities. Information 

is shared in an upward way to inform higher level analyses and decisionmaking. Local values and risks influence regional and national values and 

risks. Likewise, national values and risks influence regional and local values and risks. The risk management 

framework of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is designed to consistently address 

these elements. 

Comparing National and Regional Strategies

As the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy evolves, regional strategies will be developed 

that include different investment levels and mixes of options for reducing wildfire risk. These differences would 

reflect varying levels of emphasis on the major goals, in addition to recognizing fiscal and practical constraints. 

The Cohesive Strategy will include selected strategies from each region.

A comparative risk assessment is one method for rigorously comparing differences among strategic alternatives. 

Risk assessment is a mature scientific approach to quantifying risk. Comparative risk assessment extends the 

analysis to include the decision space available to managers and stakeholders to allow them to explore tradeoffs among alternative courses of action. Taking this additional step requires understanding risk tolerance. 

Assembling the various options into regional alternatives and then choosing among those alternatives to 

build a national strategy is an exercise in social choice and collaborative decision-making. Formal analytical 

methods exist that can help structure the decision process and make trade-offs transparent. These methods 

begin with clear articulation of goals and objectives and identification of alternatives, which will occur through a 

collaborative process involving the full spectrum of stakeholders. Quantitative analysis of each of the proposed 

alternatives would fall to regional analysis teams that would include university scientists and professional 

consultants in addition to Government researchers and analysts. 

Phase II: Development of Regional Strategies and Assessments

Regional strategies will be developed and analyzed using a collaborative process that cycles between analysis 

and engagement with stakeholders. The process will include the following steps:

• WFEC identifies the national science/analysis team;

• WFEC adopts guidance for Regional Strategy Committees;

• Regional Strategy Committees are identified and will develop an understanding of the governance/

oversight roles. 

• Each Regional Strategy Committee will include representatives identified and selected by WFEC;

• Regional analytical teams are identified.

• Timeframes for the following four steps will be determined by the Regional Strategy Committees:

1. Define the analysis process. This will include identifying the information available; the 

analytical tools that can be employed; and who is available to engage in the analysis.

2. Define and analyze initial alternatives. This will involve describing an initial set of broad 

alternatives, including understanding the goals of each alternative, the components that 

are needed for the analysis of each alternative and the bounds of the analysis and problem 

to be addressed. Analysis of these alternatives will help test the analytical methods, 

Wildfire burns in the Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park in Texas. Credit: Fred Armstrong
Cohesive

Str

ategy

12

and ultimately provide information that will 

be needed by the regional technical and 

stakeholder groups to help refine specific 

regional alternatives.

3. Collaboratively identify the regional alternatives. 

Relying on local and regional knowledge 

and insights, describe a small set of regional 

alternatives. This exercise draws from the 

understanding gained from analysis of the initial 

alternatives. These alternatives would be shared 

with and shaped by regional stakeholders.

4. Analyze the regional alternatives and share the 

results with stakeholders. Update content based 

on regional feedback.

• Submit results of the regional analyses for national 

analysis.

Phase III: National Trade-Off Analysis and Execution

During Phase III, the following steps will occur:

• Conduct the national analysis. Develop a draft national summary of the regional alternatives. The 

summary will include a description of the decision space available, a description of the activities and 

priorities associated with the regional alternatives, and a description of the tradeoffs associated among the 

alternatives.

• Share the results of the national results and summarization with stakeholders.

• Update and conclude the analysis based on feedback from the stakeholders.

• Establish a 5 year review cycle to provide updates to Congress.

In Conclusion 

The Cohesive Strategy envisioned by the WFLC builds on successes of the past while incorporating a new 

collaborative approach to managing a complex national problem — wildfire. This new approach includes all the 

partners involved in fire management and gives each a voice and a role in addressing a collective problem. Reducing 

the risk of wildfire to landscapes and communities and crafting more effective responses to wildfire are daunting 

challenges at the local, regional, and national levels.

Decisions concerning investment to manage wildfire risk across the landscape must consider a wide range of strategic 

issues. Programs to protect lives and property will compete for available resources over different geographical areas. 

Comparative benefits will be valued by long-term effectiveness at reducing risk. Considering the problem at multiple 

scales (local, regional, and national), provides the best method to evaluate the impact of those programs and to deliver 

the desired results. 

The Cohesive Strategy takes into account the fact that there are unique needs and environmental differences across 

the Country. It does not take a national top-down approach. Instead, it divides the Country into three regions that can 

be further divided into analysis areas, each of which will create strategies for best addressing localized or regional 

wildfire problems. Risk assessments will be used to identify lands and communities with highest risk and determine the 

actions that will have the most impact. Within the three regions, tribal, state, regional, and local interests will be heard 

and considered before regional strategies are rolled up into a national strategy. 

The cohesive strategy process outlined here is not an endpoint. It is a beginning. Goals and principles have been 

agreed to by national representatives of all the stakeholders. Now begins the hard work of bringing the stakeholders, 

landowners, homeowners, and natural resource and fire managers together to do the regional analyses, discuss 

priorities, and share the mantle of responsibility for minimizing wildfire risk. Tribes, states, counties, and communities 

must be full partners with fire managers in protecting homes and lives from wildfire.

Taking a proactive, collaborative approach to solving the Nation’s wildfire problem and involving all stakeholders 

provides the best opportunity to restore and maintain landscapes, protect communities from wildfire and effectively 

respond to wildfires when they occur. 

As cited in the 2009 A Call to Action formulated by fire managers across multiple jurisdictions and identified as a 

foundational document by WFLC, “Effective partnerships, with shared responsibility held by all stakeholders of the 

wildland fire problem, will create well-prepared, fire-adapted communities and healthy, resilient landscapes at the most 

efficient cost.” This is a challenge of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.

Fire was used by the North Carolina Division of 

Forest Resources to reduce hazardous fuels during a 

prescribed burn project. Credit: Dan Smith, NASF.
13

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Appendix A: Comparative Risk Assessment

The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (National Cohesive Strategy) is a national strategy 

inclusive of all lands – applicable and relevant to local, state, tribal, and Federal entities. A key to the National 

Cohesive Strategy is its inclusiveness. The success of Phase II of the National Cohesive Strategy hinges on 

regional and national trade-off analyses with meaningful participation by diverse partners. 

The following appendix, Comparative Risk Assessment Framework for Wildland Fire Management, describes 

possible approaches and methodologies for the analytical processes of Phase II. The primary purpose of 

the example is to demonstrate and test the framework and explore risk-based approaches. The regional and 

national analyses of Phase II are expected to utilize more comprehensive data than was possible in the current 

example. The expectation is that Phase II will rely on the best available information from local, regional, and 

national sources that can be consistently assembled. While this will surface data shortcomings, there is a 

commitment to continuously update the National Cohesive Strategy and improve the datasets used in the 

Comparative Risk Assessment.

A Comparative Risk Assessment Framework for Wildland Fire Management

I. Background

Major investments are being made throughout the United States in ongoing efforts to reduce human and 

ecological losses from catastrophic wildfire. It is becoming increasingly clear that landscape scale changes in 

vegetation structure and fuel loadings are needed to significantly alter wildfire behavior, reduce wildfire losses, 

and achieve longer term fire resiliency. The most efficient way to achieve these long-term landscape goals 

remains unclear, and there are different perceptions on the relative role and effectiveness of management 

activities versus natural and managed wildfire to reduce fuels. 

Risk is an inescapable component of living with wildfire. Whether one uses risk in the conventional sense of 

“something bad may happen” or a more precise definition such as the expected loss from an uncertain future 

event(s), the basic elements of uncertainty and loss are there. Following this basic reasoning, one can view the 

National Cohesive Strategy as a classic problem of risk management. That is, effective management requires 

understanding the nature of wildfire and its contributing factors, recognizing the consequences—good and 

bad—of fire, addressing uncertainty, and crafting plans that reduce the chances of catastrophic losses. Realworld constraints on funding, available resources, and administrative flexibility further require consideration of 

economic efficiency and practicality.

In order to help meet the challenges of the National Cohesive Strategy, the Science Panel proposes using 

comparative risk assessment as a rigorous basis for analyzing strategic alternatives (see complete report at 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov). Risk assessment is a long standing and mature scientific approach 

to quantifying risk; comparative risk assessment simply extends the analysis to include the decision space 

available to managers and stakeholders to allow them to explore the trade-offs between alternative courses of 

action. Taking this additional step requires understanding preferences and risk tolerance. Ultimately, choosing 

among available options demands clarity in management objectives, and where multiple objectives are 

present, understanding management priorities. A cornerstone of the National Cohesive Strategy will be regional 

strategies that address regional risks. A shared risk framework ensures consistency and comparability across 

goals, performance measures, methodologies, and data collection. 

Recent developments in technology and decision support systems have improved the ability to assess, monitor, 

and respond to wildfire risk. For example, wildfire simulation models support tactical and strategic decisions 

related to reducing wildfire risk, and have been coupled with geospatial data on values to build risk-based 

decision support systems. The result has been a rapid advance in the application of risk analysis across a full 

range of wildfire management activities. Risk analyses are now being applied across the U.S. for a wide range 

of wildfire problems, including risk monitoring, strategic budget planning, wildland fire decision support systems, 

and fuel treatment planning. 
Cohesive

Str

ategy

14

Any rigorous approach to risk begins with a clear definition of the terminology. Herein, risk is defined as a 

composite measure of the probability of a set of possible outcomes and the consequences associated with 

each outcome. That is, risk is a two-dimensional measure that includes both the probability and magnitude of 

potential outcomes. For example, consider the two probability distributions shown in Figure 1, which represent 

the uncertainty in the number of acres burned annually under two scenarios. Both distributions have an average 

value of 5 million acres, but the wider spread in the curve tagged Scenario 1 suggests greater uncertainty in 

what the actual value in a given year will be. If the social or ecological consequences associated with each acre 

that burns increases with the total acres burning, then Scenario 2 would be preferable to Scenario 1, despite 

having the same expected value. Discerning such differences requires understanding the consequences of fire 

beyond simple summary statistics.

Figure 1. Quantifying risk as a probability distribution

Although the full probability distribution is preferred for many comparative risk assessments, reducing risk to a 

single index can aid risk comparisons across complex landscapes where the sheer numbers to consider can be 

overwhelming. One such index is the probabilistic expectation of net resource value change in response to fire. 

Mathematically, this is defined as:

Thus, the expected NVC is the product of burn probability at a given fire intensity and the resulting change 

in resource value, summed over all possible fire intensities. The components required to generate spatially 

explicit wildfire risk indices are: 1) burn probability maps generated from wildfire simulation models, 2) spatially 

identified resources, and 3) response functions describing the impact of fire on the resource(s) in question. 
15

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Essential Elements for Analyzing Risk

One of the first steps in comparative risk assessment is developing a conceptual model that simplifies the 

problem into a set of basic components and provides a framework for discussing strategic options. For 

example, consider the hypothetical case of a single wildfire. Whether a wildfire ignites and how extensively and 

intensively it burns depends on the interactions of five factors: a source of ignition, available fuels, topography, 

weather, and suppression response. By itself, the fire is simply an event. It can be described by its location, 

intensity, duration, extent, or other characteristics, but it has no normative value—it is neither good nor bad. 

The consequences matter, however, whenever homes and other structures are involved, or when critical habitat 

for an endangered species will be rendered unsuitable for decades following the fire. Naturally, the extent of 

the loss of value depends on the extent and intensity of the fire and how many homes or acres of habitat are 

affected. 

This simple model of risk can be completed by adding consequences (value changes) and management options 

available that might directly affect factors contributing to risk (Figure 2). For example, a fire prevention program 

could lessen the probability of human caused ignitions. Similarly, a fuels treatment program might change fire 

behavior and make it less damaging or easier to suppress. A third option might be to consider adding firefighting 

capacity to the local community or management unit so that wildfires are more often contained before they 

grow large and damaging. Finally, some consideration might be given to reducing the likelihood of a wildfire 

damaging homes or other structures by focusing on the immediate area around the home or near critical 

habitats. The intent in this option is not to change fire directly, but rather to lessen the consequences if it occurs.

Figure 2. A simple conceptual model of wildfire, its contributing factors, consequences, and management options.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

16

The next step in comparative risk assessment is translating the conceptual model into a probabilistic model that 

can be used to generate quantitative estimates of risk, given alternative management choices as inputs. Such 

models must be parameterized and validated using rigorous statistical methods and checked against empirical 

data if they are to rise to the standard of high-quality risk assessment tools. Finding the appropriate balance 

among model complexity, data demands, and utility is a major challenge. The example analyses described in 

following sections suggest that current models and data are available to help meet this challenge, but more 

work is needed.

Balancing Regional and National Priorities

Developing an overarching national strategy invariably will involve tradeoffs between regional and national 

priorities. As the National Cohesive Strategy evolves, various regional strategies will be proposed that include 

different investment levels and mixes of options for reducing wildfire risk. These differences would reflect 

varying levels of emphasis on the major goals of the National Cohesive Strategy, in addition to recognizing fiscal 

and practical constraints. For example, each regional strategy could consist of a given funding level for each 

of the three key components of the National Cohesive Strategy– Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and 

Wildfire Response. The National Cohesive Strategy will comprise selected strategies from each region.

Assembling the various options into regional alternatives and then choosing among those alternatives to 

build a national strategy is fundamentally an exercise in social choice and collaborative decision making. 

Formal analytical methods exist that can help structure the decision process and make trade-offs transparent. 

Consistency among the methods used in each region will help facilitate national comparisons. There is a 

tension between adopting a top-down approach and retaining analytical and decision flexibility at regional 

and local scales. The more disparate regional analyses are, the greater the difficulty of integrating analyses, 

maintaining and updating analyses over time, and comparing outputs over time to previous versions. 

One of the primary challenges for both regional and national efforts is developing performance measures (i.e., 

assessment endpoints) that accurately represent accomplishments in risk reduction and integrate the diversity 

of regionally specific issues and management priorities. Regional analyses can provide more refined risk 

analysis than available at the national scale and clarify the relative priority of protecting potentially competing 

resource demands. However each region may identify alternative methods for considering risk to individual 

resources and consider different sets of values. Accommodating these differences—while maintaining the 

capacity for national comparison—requires careful attention to methods and data.

II. Probabilistic Assessment of Wildfire Risk: A National Example

A recent publication, Wildland Fire Risk and Hazard: Procedures for the First Approximation, describes a 

baseline assessment framework from which to build national, regional, and sub-regional analyses. This national 

assessment provides an example of how wildfire risk can be assessed at the national level. It was completed 

to facilitate monitoring trends in wildfire risk over time, and to develop information useful in prioritizing fuels 

treatments and mitigation measures. The project employed a risk framework that included: 

• Estimating spatially explicit fire probability and intensity through the use of a wildfire simulation 

model 

• Characterizing important resource values and assets (for example, municipal watersheds, 

endangered species habitat, and where people live)

• Developing response functions to quantify how important resource values and assets change under 

varying levels of fire intensity

• Calculating expected NVC and summarizing by geographical areas

Seven broad categories of developed and natural resources were included in the assessment: populated areas, 

fire-adapted ecosystems, fire-susceptible species, energy infrastructure, recreation infrastructure, municipal 

watersheds, and air quality. These values were consolidated into a single measure using relative scoring criteria 

commonly used in problems involving multiple variables that are not directly comparable. It is recognized that 

the resources considered in this first approximation do not include all the resources deemed important to each 

region of the Country.
17

Cohesive

Str

ategy

The national maps of burn probability and conditional fire intensities reveal important regional differences. First, 

burn probabilities are generally higher in the western half of the Country, with the notable exception of southern 

Florida (Figure 3). Fires often grow larger in the west because of the continuity of wildland vegetation. Second, 

flame lengths tend to also be greater in the west and along the edge of the east coast because of the potential 

for crown fire caused by conifer forest and fuel structure. Higher probabilities of low flame lengths predominate 

in the eastern half of the Country. 

Figure 3. National map of burn probability generated using simulation modeling.

Similar regional patterns are apparent in the national risk map (Figure 4). Higher expected losses appear 

concentrated in southern Florida, southern California, and the along Sierra Nevada mountain range. Examining 

the factors that comprise risk helps identify why some regions have higher values than others. For example, 

southern Florida exhibits high burn probabilities and high conditional flame lengths, as well as fire-susceptible 

endangered species like the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. Southern California has moderately high burn 

probabilities and conditional flame lengths paired with high population density and other resource values 

exposed to fire. The risk map suggests the beneficial influence of wildfire to fire-adapted ecosystems throughout 

the interior Great Basin and Northern Rockies regions. 
Cohesive

Str

ategy

18

Figure 4. National map of wildfire risk as quantified by the total change equivalent (TCE), an area-based measure (acres per 18-acre pixel 

per year) of relative acres gained/lost due to wildfire.

Estimates of overall risk can be summarized by resource category and geographic area. In this analysis, 

populated areas contribute most to national wildfire risk (58 percent) followed by municipal watersheds 

(20 percent), fire susceptible species (13 percent), infrastructure (7 percent), air quality (2 percent) and 

recreation (.02 percent). Fire adapted ecosystems actually reduce overall risk by 1 percent, which demonstrates 

a net beneficial response to wildfire. Although benefits are observed across broad areas, their overall magnitude 

is quite modest relative to anticipated losses associated with populated areas and watersheds. Among 

geographical areas, California representing 30 percent of national wildfire risk, followed by the Southern Area 

(22 percent), Southwest (17 percent), Great Basin (10 percent), Rocky Mountain (10 percent), Northwest 

(5 percent), Northern Rockies (4 percent) and Eastern (3 percent). 

The national risk maps also highlight an important distinction between wildfire risk and wildfire occurrence. 

While relevant to emergency fire response and firefighting infrastructure, ignition locations or densities depict 

only localized impacts from nearby ignitions and not from fire spread or area burned. This is because burn 

probability can be relatively high in areas with large fires, even though ignition probability is low. As fires grow 

large, they spread long distances and burn locations distal to the ignition. Figure 5 depicts the ratio of ignition 

density (#/ac/year) and burn probability from historical fire records. High values in Eastern areas and the 

Northwest coast imply high numbers of ignitions relative to the total area burned. 
19

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Figure 5. Ratio of ignition density (#/ac/yr) to burn probability from historical data (1980-2008). High values shown in red and orange 

indicate many ignitions relative to area burned. 

III. Exploring Options for Reducing Risk

The discussions above focus on current levels of risk or simple conceptualizations of how natural factors and 

management actions affect risk. Broader management options that might be taken to affect those risks are 

implied, but have not been specifically analyzed. More complete analyses of regional and national investment 

strategies are expected as the National Cohesive Strategy progresses. In the interim, it is instructive to consider 

the types of options available, how they might be analyzed, and what available information might be relevant. 

The simple conceptual model in Figure 2 identified four basic options for affecting risk:

• Invest to prevent human caused ignitions

• Invest in fuel treatments

• Invest to build capacity in wildfire response

• Invest to protect values exposed to risk

We speak to each of these individually, but as will become readily apparent, the real work is in trying to 

understand how they might best be applied together. 

To understand how each option might play out, it’s necessary to 1) establish a historical point of reference, 

2) develop an analytical capacity to examine the relative effectiveness of each option, and 3) project conditions 

into the future. Fortunately, there are numerous completed and ongoing assessment and planning efforts that 

provide a good start on having the tools and information needed. For example, Fire Program Analysis (FPA) 

is an interagency effort that focuses on investment effectiveness. The analytical system designed and built to 
Cohesive

Str

ategy

20

support FPA models the effectiveness of fire prevention programs, investments in preparedness resources, 

and landscape fuel treatments. Effectiveness is evaluated by examining various performance measures tied 

to the probability and intensity of areas burning within the analysis area and the suppression costs associated 

with responding to wildfires. FPA is not the only modeling framework available to tackle these issues, but it is 

remarkable in its level of detail and extensive accounting and analysis features.

One of the more critical data sets used by FPA is the historical fire occurrence data compiled by Federal 

and state agencies. FPA uses these data to determine the location and cause of wildfire ignitions, as well as 

providing a basis for model calibration. The FPA data set has some known issues associated with data accuracy 

and completeness, especially regarding fires on non-Federal lands. Updated versions of the data set will correct 

some problems related to duplicate records and missing or inaccurate location information, but the updated 

data will likely still exclude some fires that occurred historically. The FPA records for fires occurring from 1999 

to 2008 are used here for illustrative purposes, recognizing that improved and more comprehensive data may 

become available that could change the results.

As a point of reference, approximately 447,000 recorded wildfires occurred across the US between 1999 and 

2008, burning nearly 70 million acres during this time period. Although the Southern geographic region led all 

regions with number of recorded wildfires (41 percent of total), most of the acreage burned in western states—

over 18 million in Alaska alone—which tend to experience fewer, but larger fires on average. The 10-year 

historical average for the conterminous 48 states is close to the roughly 5 million acres per year of simulated 

wildfires used to generate the burn probability map shown above in Figure 3. Dividing the area burned in 

a 10-year period by the land area of each state produces an area-adjusted map of historical burning that 

corresponds well to the simulated burn probability map (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Cumulative area burned in each state from1999-2008. Areas are normalized by dividing the area burned by the total land area in 

each state.
21

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Option 1. Invest to Prevent Human Caused Ignitions

There is an old adage that the best way to stop a wildfire is to make sure it never starts. Wildfire prevention 

programs form an important component of any comprehensive wildfire management strategy. Ranging from the 

familiar Smokey the Bear© public education campaign to focused law enforcement, prevention efforts target 

those sources of human ignitions that can be avoided, including arson, debris burning, campfires, smoking, offroad vehicle use, and others. The degree to which human-caused ignitions contribute to wildfire is substantial. 

Nationwide, human ignitions (everything except lightning) accounted for nearly 75 percent of all wildfires starts, 

yet only 30 percent of the acreage burned. This disparity is due to geographical differences in wildfires; the 

western states experience larger fires dominated by lightning ignitions, while smaller wildfires in most eastern 

states are human caused (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Historical distribution of reported cause of wildfire ignitions by state (1999-2008)

Despite a long and storied history of fire prevention programs in the United States, scholarly analysis of 

the effectiveness of these programs is scarce. A recent article by Prestemon and others (2010) is a notable 

exception, who remark “although a common belief is that wildfire prevention education is worthwhile, there is a 

striking absence of studies documenting its effectiveness.” One of the more commonly used tools for estimating 

the effects of prevention programs is the Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies (RAMS) model, which 

was developed in the mid 1990’s using expert opinion. The RAMS model uses a combination of effectiveness 

factors and preventability factors to calculate the expected reduction in human ignitions given a prescribed 

mix of program elements such as patrols, signs, law enforcement, and public contact. The degree to which fire 

can be prevented varies by specific cause. The FPA incorporates RAMS in its suite of models and caps the 

preventability levels by cause. For example, no more than 7 percent of arson fires can be prevented within FPA, 

while 16 percent of fires started by debris burning and children can be prevented.

For illustrative purposes, the maximum preventability factors and historical fire information from FPA were used 

to calculate the upper limit for expected change in ignitions and area burned. Nationwide, an estimated 9.4 

percent of the reported ignitions from 1999 to 2008 could have been prevented, which would have reduced 

the expected acres burned by 3.4 percent. The differences among states are dramatic, again, depending on 

whether fires are predominately human-caused. Normalized by land area within each state, the greatest gains 

in terms of ignitions per square mile are found in high-fire-frequency states such Georgia, New Jersey, South 

Carolina, and Florida. In terms of relative change in the number of ignitions, many eastern states exceed the 

national average, while western states dominated by lightning-caused ignitions show relatively small benefits. 

Further analyses at the county level would show similar variation among counties within many states such as 

California with a mix of urban and wildland areas.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

22

A comparison of these national results with the empirical results of Prestemon and others (2010) from Florida 

suggests that the limits on preventability imposed by RAMS may seriously underestimate the benefit of 

prevention programs in some areas. Using a sophisticated empirical model, Prestemon and others show 

that increased investment in wildlife prevention education (WPE) could result in reductions in preventable 

ignitions upwards of 80 percent, with associated reductions in acres burned a more modest 10 percent or less. 

Prestemon and others go further in their analysis, incorporating estimates of change in net value similar to the 

process described above to estimate that the marginal benefits of averted wildfire damages are 35 times the 

investment in WPE in Florida; reduced suppression costs alone account for 15 percent of the estimated benefit. 

Option 2. Invest in Fuel Treatments

Considerable research has been conducted on landscape fuel treatment design, especially the spatial 

arrangement of treatments to achieve optimum reduction in fire spread and intensity. Viewing the landscape 

treatment problem through the lens of risk assessment offers a more comprehensive framework to inform fuel 

treatment strategies in terms of location, amount, type, and spatial patterns of treatments. While risk provides 

a comprehensive index of likelihood, intensity, and potential effects, the measure needs to be decomposed to 

develop and analyze options for operational fuel treatment strategies. Specifically, wildfire risk factors combined 

with: 1) spatial pattern of values, 2) fire management objectives, and 3) fire regime, determine fuel treatment 

and overall fire management strategies. The risk factors determine the relative mix of intensity and likelihood 

of wildfire, while the spatial pattern of values determines the interaction of wildfire risk factors with values 

perceived to be at risk. Fire management objectives determine whether mitigation emphasizes restoring natural 

fire regimes, or suppression to protect highly valued resources (HVR), or a strategy in between. All of these 

components inform operational fuel treatment strategies. 

The complexity and importance of a comprehensive fuels management program cannot be overstated. Local 

effectiveness depends heavily on the type of vegetation involved, the nature of the treatment, the spatial extent 

and location of treatments, and interactions of all of the above with topography, weather, infrastructure, and the 

suppression resources engaged if and when a wildfire occurs.

These complexities notwithstanding, it is informative to examine how broad-scale applications of fuel 

treatments might affect risk using basic models with simplifying assumptions. Fuel treatment scenarios 

were modeled spatially but very generally for each Fire Planning Unit (FPU) as part of the FPA process. The 

methods consisted of first soliciting treatment prescriptions by fuel and vegetation type from local fire planners. 

These prescriptions contained details on changes to surface fuel models and canopy characteristics that 

constitute treatments applicable to current fuel type descriptions. Then, an automated procedure applied these 

prescriptions to specific stands throughout the planning unit until roughly 15 percent of treatable landscape 

was treated. The quasi-random placement of treatment units meant that smaller areas within the planning unit 

varied considerably from this average figure. The treatment effect was estimated by running the fire behavior 

models for a treated landscape using identical simulation settings as for the reference baseline landscape. The 

contrast between risk metrics for each landscape illustrates the magnitude of possible changes resulting from 

this treatment level and considering only fuel types in placing treatments. 

The FPA fuel treatment scenario resulted in modified burn probability (Figure 8) and conditional flame length 

across the Country. Intersecting these modified burn probability and flame lengths with the resource layers 

resulted in total national risk being reduced by 24 percent. Risk reduction to individual units was highly variable, 

ranging from an 11 percent increase in risk to 69 percent reduction in risk. This range of results is due largely to 

the following factors: 1) the arrangement of fuels relative to values, 2) the effectiveness of treatment in reducing 

fire spread and intensity in certain fuel types, and 3) how the individual planning units defined the treatment 

prescriptions that were evaluated. 
23

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Figure 8. Changes in simulated burn probability resulting from fuel treatments on 15% of each FPU (standard run minus treatment run). 

Thus, red and orange colors indicate increases in burn probability with treatment whereas green colors indicate reductions of burn 

probability (positive difference).

The effect of treatment on national risk to individual resource categories varied across categories. Beneficial 

effects of wildfire on fire adapted ecosystems were reduced while all other resources experienced a reduction 

in loss. Fire susceptible species experienced the lowest reduction of risk at 16 percent with recreational 

areas seeing a risk reduction of 63 percent. Populated areas that represented 58 percent of national risk in 

the standard run experienced a 23 percent reduction in risk. The ranking of geographical areas based on 

contribution to national risk did not change between the treated and standard runs. However, the relative 

contribution to national risk was reduced in the 2 highest ranked areas, California and Southern Area, while the 

Southwest, Great Basin, and Rocky Mountain all increased as a proportion of national risk.

Estimating changes in risk by looking at both burn probability and fire intensity is highly informative, but 

computationally demanding. By simplifying further and assuming that risk is proportional to area burned, the 

potential magnitude of changes in risk from fuel treatments can be examined using statistical approximation. A 

statistical model was fit to the simulation results during the FPA analysis completed in 2010. This model used a 

series of matched simulations to derive statistical relationships that use the fire spread inherent in a particular 

location, the weather conditions during a wildfire, and the extent of fuel treatment in the area surrounding the 

fire ignition point to estimate the expected size of each simulated wildfire. The statistical model fits the simulated 

data reasonably well in most planning units, with exceptions in some eastern states with highly fragmented fuel 

patterns. The statistical approximation approach promises to be useful for analyzing a broad range of options.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

24

Option 3. Invest to Build Capacity in Fire Response

Analyzing investments in wildfire response can be very complicated. In addition to the complexities of fire 

behavior, one has to address interactions among the distribution of available resources, their performance 

on the fire, the dispatch logic used to send resources to a fire, and multiple operational constraints. The FPA 

includes a highly detailed Initial Response Simulator which addresses many of these issues, but is designed 

to only simulate responses in the first 18 hours following discovery of a wildfire. This simulator will be essential 

to understanding the feedback between initial attack effectiveness and behavior of fires that escape. Although 

poorly quantified at present, highly successful initial attack means that fires escape only under the rarest and 

most extreme weather conditions, becoming more severe. Thus, potential benefits to fuels or habitat from 

wildfires burning under moderate conditions are never realized, and, in turn, increases demand for initial attack 

effort and resources. Through more detailed analysis and the modeling in FPA, this feedback process may 

become understood and incorporated into the risk framework.

Once a wildfire has escaped initial containment efforts, further complications arise as resources are drawn from 

remote locations, fire behavior becomes difficult to predict, and even the objectives of the suppression response 

may change from day to day depending on circumstances that are not easily understood, much less modeled. 

Ongoing research directed at better understanding the management context and decision processes used 

in large fire suppression may lead to more reliable models that can capture the principal factors influencing 

performance—however it might be measured.

Option 4. Invest to Protect Values Exposed to Risk

The motivation behind options designed to lessen values at risk is relatively simple. If you cannot change the 

likelihood of a wildfire occurring, you might instead focus on lessening the chances that fire would have negative 

consequences. Such thinking motivates many of the activities focused at homeowners in the wildland-urban 

interface, who are taught to actively manage areas adjacent to their homes to reduce the chances of wildfires 

reaching their homes, or are encouraged to think ahead and have emergency supplies readily at hand and 

evacuation plans that can be implemented at a moment’s notice. Similarly, important cultural or archeological 

sites may be managed in ways that offer passive resistance to wildfires. Species conservation plans also can 

be designed to manage risks by ensuring that no single event has the capacity to eliminate large blocks of the 

population or critical habitat.

Analyzing such options seems easy at first glance, but becomes increasingly difficult the better it is understood. 

In the analytical framework proposed above, reducing the exposure to risk is as simple as changing the 

response functions or benefit/loss values. This presumes, of course, that the appropriate values are addressed 

in the analysis to begin with and that the initial response functions accurately capture changes in value. Neither 

presumption is likely to go unchallenged. Although society generally agrees that human lives and property are 

important and should be protected, it seems that consensus often stops there. The range of other values that 

should be included in the analysis and how these values might change with fire can often be contentious. 

A second problem concerns the sensitivity of the response function to management actions. In the prototype 

risk analyses described above, stylized response functions were used that only crudely capture the effects 

of fire at varying intensities on values of concern. If the function is derived with little or no empirical basis, 

any change in that function could seem arbitrary without quantitative analyses to support it. Furthermore, the 

signal to noise ratio in the response function may be very weak and much of the change in the function due to 

proposed management actions may not rise to the level necessary to overcome the noise.

The net results of these considerations is that any action short of major shifts in policies or broad-scale changes 

in management are likely best left to local analyses that can be appropriately scaled to capture the appropriate 

changes.

An important concept related to reducing exposure is socioeconomic vulnerability. The intersection of human 

population, valued resources, and wildfire creates opportunities to strategically allocate wildfire response or 

prevention actions to minimize risk to human life and property. In the field of hazards, risk, and resiliency, a clear 

distinction is made between risk assessments which describe the expected loss of assets, and vulnerability 

assessments which characterize the exposure, sensitivity, and resilience of communities to a hazard. Both 

types of analyses apply to the goals and objectives of the National Cohesive Strategy. 
25

Cohesive

Str

ategy

In the risk assessment realm, additional research would address the expected impact of wildfires on economic 

activity and housing/infrastructure value. By looking at regional economic output in addition to the potential 

damage to structures a more complete view of the economic costs of wildfires can be compared across 

regions and among communities. Such analyses could, for example, highlight areas where natural resource or 

recreational dependent communities might be affected more severely by wildfire compared to communities with 

a diversified economic base.

Social vulnerability to natural hazards is a growing area of interdisciplinary research included in risk reduction 

strategies. Studies have analyzed how vulnerability varies among different segments of the population and 

how they will respond to a hazard, how hazards affect business and regional economic output, and how social 

vulnerability to hazards has changed over time across the US. This research attempts to characterize hazards 

and vulnerability from a more holistic perspective, particularly in the wake of natural disasters such as Hurricane 

Katrina or the Gulf Oil Spill, where economic damages do not fully represent the long term changes made to the 

physical, ecological, social and economic structure of the communities in the Gulf of Mexico.

IV. Risk Analyses at Smaller Spatial Scales

As stated above, the comparative risk framework can be applied to management problems at a range of scales. 

Three examples from ongoing and recently published work demonstrate this scalability. These include analyses 

at the scale of a Forest Service region, forest, and project. Regional analyses will play prominently in the early 

phase of the development of regional strategies, and in later implementation and monitoring. The forest and 

project examples will be particularly useful in later implementation phases of the National Cohesive Strategy 

and illustrate a consistent application of risk assessment and management across scales. 

The Regional prototype is being developed in the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) and 

considers multiple threats (climate change, insect and disease, invasive plants) and values (carbon, critical 

habitat, etc.) to meet the needs of ongoing, regionally specific assessments. Thus the regional assessments 

can serve both local and national needs, the former having a scope beyond fire and fuels. The process 

leverages regional data sets to the extent they are available. Specific questions that are being addressed in the 

Region 6 example include: 

• Are there associations among threats like wildfire, insects, and climate change that form spatial 

patterns in the region?

• Which human and ecological values are most associated with particular threats?

• How and where is management opportunities aligned with the occurrence of particular threat – 

value combinations?

• Where are restoration activities needed most and how are they associated with management 

opportunity?

• How can watersheds be ranked relative to the complete constellation of threats and values that 

face land managers?

Risk analyses also can be applied at the level of a national forest or similar management unit to address a 

range of fuel treatment planning issues, including assessing the relative risk to resources of local values, 

and the assessment of treatment effectiveness for forest-wide plans. The example presented here was 

excerpted from a larger risk assessment study on the Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon. This work 

demonstrated the application of risk assessment to analyze the relative risk to human and ecological values. 

The assessment focused on three key questions of keen interest to Federal managers and policymakers: 

• Are the wildfire risks to conservation and other forest plan reserves more or less than land 

designations receiving fuel treatments?

• What is the relative wildfire risk to urban interface areas compared to different land-use 

designations?

• Are specific conservation reserves responsible for the transmission of wildfire to other reserves? 
Cohesive

Str

ategy

26

The analyses revealed spatial variation in wildfire risk that is useful in prioritizing fuels treatments and guiding 

other wildfire mitigation activities. The work also illuminated the conflict between biodiversity conservation efforts 

on Federally managed lands and the high wildfire risk on fire-prone landscapes. In this study, estimates of burn 

probabilities and conditional flame lengths were used to examine the relative risk among land management 

allocations, conservation reserves, urban interface areas, and other designations on the Forest and surrounding 

lands. Thus, the highly valued resources were tiered directly to forest plan standards and management plan 

land designations. Selected outputs from these analyses revealed wide variation among and within polygons 

belonging to specific land designations, providing a clear identification of priority targets for mitigation activities. 

Specific designations and conservation reserves showed markedly higher conditional flame lengths, such as 

spotted owl active and potential home ranges. In contrast, the general forest matrix showed relatively high burn 

probabilities and lower conditional flame length. Most of the urban interface showed lower burn probability and 

expected flame length. 

A fuel treatment priority map for the Forest was used to simulate fuel treatments and examine change in wildfire 

risk. The treatment scenario called for 64,000 ha of treatments in the general forest management areas. The 

ratio of the burn probability after and before the treatments was used to examine change in wildfire likelihood. 

The analysis suggested large reductions in burn probability in conservation areas and other reserves. For 

instance, the likelihood of a fire in the old growth reserves was 30 percent of the pre-treatment conditions. 

The effect of treatments on both burn probability and fire size for specific reserves like old growth show large 

reductions post treatment (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Change in burn probability and fire size to old growth units on the Deschutes National Forest after simulating treatments on about 

20% of the forested areas. Treatments were not placed inside old growth units. 
27

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Example Project Scale Prototype 

Individual project planning can readily benefit from targeted risk assessments. Ager and others (2010) used risk 

analysis to examine the tradeoff between landscape restorations versus protection of structures within a typical 

wildland-urban interface in eastern Oregon. The treatment strategies were evaluated by simulating 10,000 

wildfires with random ignition locations and calculating burn probabilities by 0.5 m flame length categories for 

each 30 x 30 m pixel in the study area. The burn conditions for the wildfires were chosen to replicate severe fire 

events based on 97th percentile historic weather conditions. The burn probabilities were used to calculate wildfire 

risk profiles for each of the 170 residential structures within the urban interface, and to estimate the expected 

(probabilistic) wildfire mortality of large trees (>21 inches) that are a key indicator of stand restoration objectives. 

Expected wildfire mortality for large trees was calculated by building flame-length mortality functions using the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator, and subsequently applying these functions to the burn probability outputs. Results 

suggest that treatments on a relatively minor percentage of the landscape (10 percent) result in a roughly 70 

percent reduction in the expected wildfire loss of large trees for the restoration scenario (Figure 10). 

Figure 10. Graph from Ager et al (2010), which shows the expected loss of old growth trees (>53.3 cm diameter at 137.2 cm above ground) 

as a function of 6 treatment intensities and 2 spatial treatment scenarios. The graphs indicate that treatments in the urban interface area 

(RDEN scenario) are relatively ineffective at reducing expected loss of large trees compared to treatments in the wildlands (SDEN scenario) 

where stands were thinned to promote fire resiliency. Species codes are: DF: Douglas-fir, PP: ponderosa pine, WL: western larch, ES: 

Engelmann spruce, SF: subalpine fir. 

Treating stands near residential structures resulted in a higher expected loss of large trees, but relatively lower 

burn probability and flame length within structure buffers. Substantial reduction in burn probability and flame 

length around structures was also observed in the restoration scenario where fuel treatments were located 

5–10 km distant (Figure 11). This study demonstrated tradeoffs between ecological management objectives on 

wildlands (large fire resilient trees) versus protection of structures.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

28

Figure 11. Example of flame length and annual burn probability scatter plots from Ager et al. (2010) showing values for individual structures 

for the Mt Emily wildland urban interface in northeastern Oregon. The stand density (SDEN) and residential density (RDEN) scenarios used 

different spatial treatment priorities that emphasized fire resiliency in the wildlands versus protection of structures in the urban interface. 

Points are average values for all pixels within a 45.7 m radius around each structure. The figure shows that burn probability, and to a lesser 

extent flame length, can be reduced around structures when fuel treatments are located outside the interface to address forest restoration 

and create fire resilient forests. 

The Mount Emily study and others like it quantify off-site fuel treatment effects that often are not analyzed in fuel 

management studies. Moreover, they revealed spatial variation in burn probability and intensity that is useful for 

prioritizing fuels treatments to protect specific human and ecological values. This work advances the application 

of quantitative risk analysis to the problem of wildfire threat assessment for fuel treatment projects. Risk scatter 

plots and burn probability were developed as a decision tool to evaluate risk, prioritize treatments, and measure 

the potential treatment effects. The methods employed here demonstrated a quantitative approach to risk 

assessment using existing models that are widely used within the USDA Forest Service and other public land 

management agencies in the US. 
29

Cohesive

Str

ategy

V. Historic Range of Variability for Wildfire Risk

One of the more engaging discussions that occur frequently is whether historical levels of wildland fire can 

be restored and sustained. Quantitative risk analysis was performed for an assumed historical condition that 

would serve as a baseline for comparing modern risk in areas where ecological processes and ecosystem 

sustainability are likely and possible objectives. This historical risk is not applicable where lands are no longer 

managed for ecological sustainability. Sustainability is defined by both disturbance processes and vegetation/

ecosystem structure (including vegetation and wildlife species and populations). Maps delineating these land 

management objectives were not available, and for demonstration purposes, public land was used to indicate 

potential areas. 

The procedures for producing the historical risk analysis are based on LANDFIRE data products. Two main 

risk components, namely average historical burn probability and distributions of fire severity, were derived from 

LANDFIRE layers of mean fire return interval (MFRI) and biophysical setting (BPS), respectively. A national map 

of each of these data themes was created for the conterminous United States at a resolution of 270 meters. 

Historical Burn Probability was derived from the MFRI data which represent 22 classes of average historical fire 

intervals. The reciprocal of the midpoint of the interval is the estimated historical burn probability. The Historical 

Fire Severity Distribution was derived from the BPS data theme which represents the vegetation that may 

have been dominant on the landscape prior to Euro-American settlement. Each BPS map unit was matched 

to a vegetation succession model which includes information on disturbance regimes, including fire. For each 

succession model the probability of three fire severity types: surface, mixed and stand replacement were 

available. The fire severity types were linked back to the individual BPS vegetation map units so that they could 

be spatially analyzed in concert with the derived historical burn probability. The absolute probability of a specific 

fire severity was then the product of the historic burn probability and the conditional fire severity probability. The 

historical probability and severity information was then used to analyze the historical risk to contemporary high 

valued resources and compared with modern risk. 

Comparison of the historical and modern risk components reveals the well known shift toward much lower 

rates of burning than historically existed. Burn probabilities for almost all areas are lower now than under 

historical conditions (Figure 12). The ratio of modern to historical probabilities identifies many places where the 

departure is the greatest – particularly in forests (Figure 13). Much higher burn probabilities occurred historically 

in agricultural areas no longer managed for wildland values. However, the ratio map also indicates substantial 

regions of the West and Southwest where burn probabilities are actually higher today. These correspond to 

places where invasive annual grasses have contributed to higher burning rates and larger fires than historical 

conditions could sustain (for example cheat grass replacing sage brush in the Great Basin). The same trend 

appears where excessive numbers of human ignitions occur adjacent to urban areas.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

30

Figure 12. Historical burn probabilities derived from LANDFIRE data layers. These probabilities are substantially higher than modern 

probabilities (see Figure 3).
31

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Figure 13. Ratio of modern to historical burn probabilities. Ratios are higher now than historical values in the Southwest and Great Basin, 

likely because of invasive grasses and increased human ignition. Ratios are substantially lower today in most of the forest types of the 

Country than historically existed.

Sustainability 

The combined use of the historical risk components and treatment effectiveness suggests areas and 

frequencies of fire that would be important to sustaining ecological process and structure. For many lands, 

historical fire regimes are not consistent with modern land use objectives. Some lands, particularly some public 

lands in the west, however, do have management objectives consistent with ecosystem sustainability for which 

the historical conditions are a relevant comparison. As an example calculation, the large public ownership in 

the west is where historical fire regimes confer a net reduction in risk. This includes increased rates of burning 

in many low elevation forest types as well as fuel treatments to decrease rates of burning in some desert 

shrublands. Using the estimates of historical and modern burning rates by ecoregion on Federal lands in the 

west, it is possible to estimate the amount of area requiring annual burning. Summary tables were generated 

of the annual acres burned historically by ecoprovince and under the current fire regime. The difference is the 

total additional area requiring burning by ecoprovince achieving estimated historical burning rates. This same 

process could be used ultimately to estimate the area requiring burning by severity class or intensity class that 

conforms to historical regimes. 

If it were a goal to return fire to the wild landscapes of the west, the amount of annual burning that would occur 

is substantially more than is currently occurring. Using a few ecoprovinces as examples indicates how much 

of an increase in burning would occur (Table 1). For instance, the Middle Rocky Mountain Steppe-Coniferous 

Forest-Alpine Meadow Province historically burned over 490,000 acres per year whereas now the area burns 

approximately 72,000 acres per year. Achieving the historic burn rate would be an increase in burning of 

approximately 500 percent above current. The Nevada-Utah Mountains-Semi-Desert-Coniferous Forest-Alpine 

Meadow Province historically burned over 222,000 acres compared to approximately 155,000 acres now. 

Achieving the historic burn rate would be an increase in burning of approximately 43 percent above current. 

The Sierran Steppe-Mixed Forest-Coniferous Forest-Alpine Meadow Province historically burned over 803,000 
Cohesive

Str

ategy

32

acres compared to approximately 70,000 acres now. Achieving the historic burn rate would be an increase in 

burning of approximately 1,047 percent or ten times the amount of burning. On Federal lands in the eastern 

U.S, even more dramatic contrasts are seen between estimated historical burning rates that the modern rates. 

Burning rates would have to increase by thousands of percent for most ecoprovinces. The historical contribution 

of Native American burning practices to the historical fire regime in many of these areas would probably have to 

be considered dominant over natural ignitions. 

The issue of smoke management and tolerance will play a considerable role in decisions regarding the 

degree to which fire will be tolerated on the landscape. If the goal is to return fire to the landscape on these 

ecoprovinces to the extent it likely existed in the pre-European settlement era, smoke tolerance constraints 

are likely to limit implementation. It warrants discussion concerning the potential goal to increase fire on the 

landscape, but to what degree. It is shown here that achieving the same level of burning as pre-European 

settlement would involve dramatic shifts from current burning levels in most regions even if wildfire, prescribed 

fire, and fuels treatment were jointly counted toward the acres burned level. 

Conclusions

Living with and managing wildland fire inherently involves facing uncertainty and the potential for catastrophic 

losses. Ultimately, the success of the Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy may hinge on how well risk is properly 

understood, quantified, and managed. Formal comparative risk assessment as described above could provide a 

sound foundation for analyzing and evaluating alternative management strategies. The examples shown above 

demonstrate the types of risk analyses made possible with modern information and tools at multiple planning 

scales. Additional information and details are available in the complete report of the science panel, which also 

addresses additional issues relevant to wildland fire and risk assessment. Information provided above and in 

the complete report establishes a solid foundation for moving forward. 

Table 1. Examples of estimated historical burning rates as compared to current rates for selected ecoprovinces in the western United States

Ecoprovince Historical Burn 

Rate (ac/yr)

Current Burn 

Rate (ac /yr) 

Net Diff. (ac/yr) Historical % 

of Current

Middle Rocky Mountain SteppeConiferous Forest-Alpine Meadow 493,123 72,071 421,052 584%

Nevada-Utah Mountains-SemiDesert-Conif Forest-Alpine Meadow 222,107 155,215 66,891 43%

N. Rocky Mountain Forest-SteppeConif Forest-Alpine Meadow 159,945 17,107 142,837 835%

Sierran Steppe-Mixed ForestConiferous Forest-Alpine Meadow 803,369 70,324 733,045 1,042%

S. Rocky Mtn Steppe-Open Woodl.-

Conif Forest-Alpine Meadow 507,141 114,478 392,662 343%

Southwest Plateau and Plains Dry 

Steppe and Shrub 59,769 2,968 56,800 1,914%

Authors of the report: Danny C Lee, Alan A. Ager, Dave E. Calkin, Mark A. Finney, Matthew P. Thompson, Thomas M. 

Quigley, and Charles W. McHugh.

Literature Cited

Ager, A. A., Vaillant, N. M., Finney, M. A. (2010). A comparison of landscape fuel treatment strategies to mitigate wildland fire 

risk in the urban interface and preserve old forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 1556-1570.

Prestemon, J. P., Butry, D. T., Abt, K., Sutphen, R. (2010). Net benefits of wildfire prevention education efforts. Forest 

Science 56(2): 181–192.

USDA Forest Service (in review). A Comparative Risk Assessment Framework for Wildland Fire Management: Science 

Report to the Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee.
33

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Appendix B: Glossary

An extensive glossary of fire management terminology and acronyms is maintained by the National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group (NWCG) as found at www.nwcg.gov/pms//pubs/glossary/index.htm. Some of the important 

terms used in this document that have specific meaning in the context of wildland fire management, but are not 

currently found in the NWCG glossary, are defined below.

Affected party A person or group of people who are affected by the outcome of a decision 

or action.

Fire-adapted 

community

Human communities consisting of informed and prepared citizens 

collaboratively planning and taking action to safely co-exist with wildland 

fire.

Fire-adapted 

ecosystem

An ecosystem is “an interacting natural system, including all the component 

organisms, together with the abiotic environment and processes affecting 

them.” (NWCG Glossary). A fire-adapted ecosystem is one that collectively 

has the ability to survive or regenerate (including natural successional 

processes) in an environment in which fire is a natural process.

Fire community A term that collectively refers to all those who are engaged in any aspect of 

wildland fire-related activities.

Fire exclusion The land management activity of keeping vegetation or ecosystems from 

burning in a wildland fire.

Fire management 

community

A subset of the fire community that is has a role and responsibility for 

managing wildland fires and their effects on the environment.

Fire science 

community

A subset of the fire community consisting of those who study, analyze, 

communicate, or educate others on the components of fire management 

that can be measured, such as fire behavior, fire effects, fire economics, and 

other related fire science disciplines.

Resilient Generally referred to in this document as “resilient ecosystems,” which are 

those that resist damage and recover quickly from disturbances (such as 

wildland fires) and human activities.

Stakeholder A person or group of people who has an interest and involvement in the 

process and outcome of a land management, fire management, or policy 

decision.
Cohesive

Str

ategy

34

Appendix C: Acronym List

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan

DOI Department of the Interior

EMDS Ecosystem Management Decision Support system

FLAME Act Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act

FPA Fire Program Analysis

FPU Fire Planning Unit

GAO General Accounting Office

HVR Highly Valued Resource

IAFC International Association of Fire Chiefs

NASF National Association of State Foresters

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NICC National Interagency Coordination Center

NIFC National Interagency Fire Center

NVC Net Value Change

NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group

PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index

USDA US Department of Agriculture

WFDSS Wildfire Decision Support System

WFEC Wildland Fire Executive Council

WFLC Wildland Fire Leadership Council

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
35

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Appendix D: References

Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Foundational Documents

2009 Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR), http://www.nifc.gov/QFR/index.htm

National Policy Framework Documents including:

• A Call to Action, http://www.nifc.gov/QFR/index.htm

• Mutual Expectations for Preparedness and Suppression in the Interface, 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/mutual_expectations_2010.pdf

• Wildland Fire Protection and Response in the United States, The Responsibilities, Authorities, and 

Roles of Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Government, 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/ildlandfireprotectionandresponseusaug09.pdf 

References and Documents (1999-2009) 

Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is needed to address Catastrophic Wildland Fire Threats. U.S. 

General Accounting Office, 1999

A Cohesive Strategy the Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting Office Report, GAO/

RCED-99-65, April 13, 2000

Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment – A Report to the President in 

Response to the Wildfires of 2000. Fire and Aviation Management, USDA Forest Service

A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year 

Strategy. Western Governors Association, 2001

Restoring Fire-Adapted Ecosystems on Federal Land. U.S. Department of the Interior and USDA Forest 

Service, 2002 

Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a 

Cohesive Strategy. U.S. Government Accountability Office, January 2005

Quadrennial Fire and Fuel Review Final Report 2005. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group Executive 

Board, July 2005

Protecting People and Natural Resources – A Cohesive Fuel Treatment Strategy, US DOI, Released April 2006

Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address 

Threats. U.S. Government Accountability Office, May 2006

Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional Strategic 

Action is needed to capitalize on Those Steps. U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 2009

Briefing paper: State Forestry Agency Perspectives Regarding 2009 Federal Wildfire Policy Implementation, 

July 2010 http://www.stateforesters.org/files/201007-NASF-FedFirePolicy-Briefing-Paper.pdf

Briefing paper: Identifying Communities at Risk and Prioritizing Risk-Reduction Projects, July 2010

http://www.stateforesters.org/files/201007-NASF-CAR-Briefing-Paper.pdf 
Cohesive

Str

ategy

36

Appendix E: Wildland Fire Leadership Council Membership

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Deputy Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment 

Chief of the Forest Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget

Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Director, Bureau of Land Management

Director, National Park Service

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Director, U.S. Geological Survey

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Fire Administration, Administrator

In addition to the Federal officials, WFLC includes seven non-Federal members comprised primarily of senior 

elected officials of state, tribal, county and municipal governments, including a state governor representing 

the National Governors’ Association, a state governor representing the Western Governors’ Association, the 

president of the Intertribal Timber Council, a county commissioner representing the National Association of 

Counties, and a mayor representing the National League of Cities. These elected officers, along with a state 

forester designated by its governor and a fire chief designated by its elected official, are invited to participate 

with the WFLC due to their interest in and statutory responsibility for wildland fire management. 

Current membership of WFLC includes:

Member Agency

Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget, WFLC Chair Department of the Interior

Jay Jensen, USDA Deputy Undersecretary for 

Natural Resources and the Environment United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Tom Tidwell, Chief USDA Forest Service

John Jarvis, Director National Park Service

Rowan Gould, Acting Director United States Fish and Wildland Service

Bob Abbey, Director Bureau of Land Management

Mike Black, Director Bureau of Indian Affairs

Marcia McNutt, Director United States Geological Service

Glenn Gaines , United States Fire Administration Department of Homeland Security

Ted Kulongoski, Governor, State of Oregon Governor Western States Representative

Dan Shoun, County Commissioner, Lake County, 

State of Oregon Counties Representative

Joe Durglo, President, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes President, Intertribal Timber Council

Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor, City of Apple Valley National League of Cities

Jeff Jahnke, State Forester, State of Colorado Designated representative for the National 

Association of State Foresters 

Chief Robert Roper, Ventura County (California) Fire 

Department

Designated representative for the International 

Association of Fire Chiefs 
37

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Appendix F: Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee

Name Affiliation

Tom Harbour USDA Forest Service

Kirk Rowdabaugh United States Department of the Interior

Maureen Hyzer USDA Forest Service

Clint Cross USDA Forest Service

Tim Sexton USDA Forest Service

Bill Van Bruggen USDA Forest Service

Susan Stewart USDA Forest Service

Dan Smith National Association of State Foresters

Caitlyn Pollihan National Association of State Foresters

Douglas MacDonald International Association of Fire Chiefs

Bryan Rice Bureau of Indian Affairs

Joshua Simmons Bureau of Indian Affairs

Michael Carrier Western Governors’ Association

Ann Walker Western Governors’ Association

Lynda Boody Bureau of Land Management

Wendy Reynolds Bureau of Land Management

Dan Buckley National Park Service

John Morlock National Park Service

Ryan Yates National Association of Counties

Aitor Bidaburu United States Fire Administration

Jim Kelton United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Jim Erickson Intertribal Timber Council
Cohesive

Str

ategy

38

Appendix G: Project Management Team

Name Agency

Lew Southard USDA Forest Service

Jeff Whitney USDA Forest Service

Sandy Cantler USDA Forest Service

Priscila Franco USDA Forest Service

Pete Lahm USDA Forest Service

Mike Hiburner USDA Forest Service

Christie Wiley USDA Forest Service

Roy Johnson Department of the Interior

Peter Teensma Department of the Interior

Bradley Washa Bureau of Land Management

Erik Berg United States Geological Survey

Ann Walker Western Governors’ Association

Al Hyde Contractor

Mark Bieghley Contractor

Tom Quigley Contractor

Writer/Editor Group

Members of the CSOC

Cheryl Renner, Contractor

Sheri Ascherfeld, Graphic Designer

Science Group

Danny C. Lee

Alan A. Ager

Dave E. Calkin

Mark A. Finney

Matthew P. Thompson

Thomas M. Quigley

Charles W. McHugh
39

Cohesive

Str

ategy

Appendix H: Wildland Fire Executive Council Membership

Director, USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management

Director, DOI Office of Wildland Fire Coordination

Assistant Administrator U.S. Fire Administration

Chair, National Association of State Foresters (NASF) Fire Committee

Chair, International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) Wildland Fire Policy Committee

Representative, Intertribal Timber Council (ITC)

Representative, National Association of Counties (NACo) 

Representative, National League of Cities (NLC)

Chair, National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)
Cohesive

Str

ategy

40

Appendix I: Process Overview

With the passage of the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act) in October 

2009, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture were directed, in part, to provide a report to Congress 

addressing seven specific elements and a cohesive wildland fire management strategy, consistent with 

recommendations in recent Government Accountability Office reports. The report was due back to Congress 

within one year.

Recognizing that a true national cohesive strategy must include all levels of fire management, the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council (WFLC), an intergovernmental committee of fire program leaders representing Federal, 

state, tribal, county and municipal interests, subsequently appointed a 24-member Cohesive Strategy Oversight 

Committee (CSOC) to complete the tasks assigned in the FLAME Act. The CSOC membership represented 

a broad cross-section of interests, including seven state, local, tribal and non-governmental organization 

representatives; five members each from the Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service, including 

senior agency members; four Federal regional line officers; and three additional Federal partners.

The purpose of the CSOC was to formulate strategy goals, options and trade-offs; to establish technical 

assessments provided by science research; and to seek field comments and other relevant studies, reports and 

documents to provide an overarching foundational document for WFLC and agency review.

In the performance of its work, the CSOC held 14 regional forums with diverse groups of stakeholders to gather 

input regarding critical issues, values, timelines, concerns, priorities, and planning. These forums were held 

in locations throughout the Country from Alaska to Virginia and drew more than 450 attendees and garnered 

375 comments. Concurrent with the forums, a science panel developed a report containing a risk analysis 

framework example to accompany the strategy formulation.

Initial drafts of the FLAME Act/GAO Report, a collaboratively designed cohesive strategy and Science Report 

were produced by early August and distributed among the CSOC members and others for comment. 

The initial drafts were revised in mid-August and subsequently presented to WFLC for review and acceptance 

on August 25. With WFLC’s comments and approval, the documents were carried forward for additional 

refinement.

Additionally, the latter draft was distributed for comment to more than 300 individuals and groups who previously 

requested an opportunity to be involved in the process as it unfolded. Of these, more than 80 responses 

containing more than 300 pages of comments were returned.

In its fourth general meeting, held in St. Paul, Minnesota September 13-16, the CSOC considered and 

incorporated comments received as it further refined the documents in preparation for submission back to 

WFLC.