A NATIONAL COHESIVE WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

PHASE II NATIONAL REPORT

 

The Wildland Fire Leadership Council adopted a vision for this century: 

“To safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowable; 

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

May 2012 
2 Big Cypress National Preserve Complex on Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Credit: Florida Forest Service 
3 

 

Table of Contents

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4

A Collaborative Approach .............................................................................................................................. 6

Guiding Principles and Core Values ......................................................................................................... 6

The Three National Goals ......................................................................................................................... 7

Governance ............................................................................................................................................... 7

A Three-Phase Process ............................................................................................................................ 8

Comparative Risk Assessment within the Cohesive Strategy .................................................................. 9

Regional Strategy Committees .................................................................................................................... 11

Phase II – Regional Assessments and Strategies ...................................................................................... 12

Regional Conditions and Context ............................................................................................................ 13

Policies and Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 16

Values ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

Trends and Uncertainties ........................................................................................................................ 22

Objectives and Actions ............................................................................................................................ 25

Actions and Activities .............................................................................................................................. 35

Barriers and Proposed Solutions ............................................................................................................ 39

Management Scenarios and Areas to Explore for Reducing Risk .............................................................. 41

The Northeast’s Areas to Explore for Reducing Risk.............................................................................. 42

The Southeast’s Management Scenarios ............................................................................................... 42

The West’s Management Scenarios ....................................................................................................... 43

Regional Collaboration and Outreach ......................................................................................................... 44

National Science and Analysis Team .......................................................................................................... 45

NSAT Efforts during Phase II .................................................................................................................. 45

NSAT Efforts during Phase III ................................................................................................................. 46

Next Steps for Cohesive Strategy ............................................................................................................... 48

Responsibilities and Timeline .................................................................................................................. 48

Communication and Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 49

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix A: Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 51

Appendix B: Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 53

Appendix C: References .............................................................................................................................. 56

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Foundational Documents ............................... 56

References and Documents .................................................................................................................... 56
4 

Appendix D: Membership Lists ................................................................................................................... 60

Northeast Region ................................................................................................................................... 60

Southeast Region ................................................................................................................................... 62

West Region ........................................................................................................................................... 63

Cohesive Strategy Subcommittee .......................................................................................................... 65

National Science and Analysis Team .................................................................................................... 66

Cohesive Strategy Communication Work Group ................................................................................... 67

Wildland Fire Executive Council ............................................................................................................. 68

Wildland Fire Leadership Council........................................................................................................... 69

Appendix E: Questions from the Comparative Risk Assessment Framework and Tools (CRAFT) ........... 70

Appendix F: Maps ....................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix G: Communications Framework ................................................................................................. 74

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes fire crew conducting a “light burning” prescribed 

underburn in the 2008 Morigeau Gulch Project in the Western portion of the Flathead Indian 

Reservation. Credit: Tony Harwood 
 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy) is a collaborative effort to 

identify, define, and address wildland fire management problems and opportunities for successful wildland 

fire management in the three regions of the United States: the Northeast, the Southeast, and the West. The 

Cohesive Strategy is being built both from the top down and from the bottom up. At the national level, the 

Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC)—an intergovernmental council of Federal, state, tribal, county, 

and municipal government officials—is the executive leadership body that charts the path and direction for 

the Cohesive Strategy effort and ensures that the work and activities align with the spirit of the Federal 

Land Assistance and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act) and other key collaborative wildland fire management 

documents. The WFLC’s fundamental role is to provide strategic oversight to the regions through efficiency 

improvements, to fully utilize existing authorities to accomplish the three national goals, and to provide the 

necessary resources and investments to implement identified current successful regional actions. 

Phase I of the Cohesive Strategy outlined a three-phase process to address the three primary factors 

presenting the greatest challenges and opportunities to make a positive difference to wildland fire 

management across America: restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, creating fire-adapted 

communities, and improving wildfire response. As part of Phase I, the WFLC adopted the following vision 

for this century: 

“To safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowable; manage 

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

In Phase II, Regional Strategy Committees (RSCs) were brought together using a holistic approach to 

create a unified regional strategy, not just for wildland fire suppression, but to explore issues of natural 

resource management and the social and economic implications of landscape and wildland fire 

management. It is a goal of this effort to develop the national strategy with regional alternatives. Therefore, 

RSCs were formed to identify regional challenges, improve communication among partners, and identify 

proposed strategies and opportunities for improvement. Regional and local stakeholders have been 

involved—they’ve had a seat at the table—and their valued perspectives brought the national wildland fire 

management decisionmaking process to a new level. Building partnerships and enhancing opportunities for 

organizations to organizations to collaborate are not only vital to the success of this vision and the 

 

Wildfire at Lake Chelan, Washington. Credit: West Region 
May 2012 2 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Cohesive Strategy, but they are critical to the overall success of wildland fire management across the 

United States. 

Representatives of Federal, state, local, and tribal governments, non-governmental organizations and other 

interested parties were brought together to describe unique regional problems and to identify current and 

future steps that can be taken—together—to meet the goals of the three focus areas of the Cohesive 

Strategy: 

(1) Restore and Maintain Landscapes: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to firerelated disturbances in accordance with management objectives. 

(2) Fire-adapted Communities: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire 

without loss of life and property. 

(3) Wildfire Response: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, 

efficient risk-based wildfire management decisions. 

As part of the assessments, the RSCs identified regional values and objectives. Some common objectives 

and actions were identified in Phase II and are 

discussed in detail in later sections of this 

report. 

Values – Each RSC articulated many value 

statements, and a short overview of each 

appears in this document. Several values were 

common to all three regions, including safety of 

firefighters and the public, protection of private 

property, conservation of air and water quality, 

restoring healthy and resilient landscapes, 

aesthetics, honoring tribal heritage and land 

uses, and the maintenance and enhancement 

of strong economies. Regions also articulated 

values specific to their region, such as the 

Northeast assessment citing recreation as 

significant, the Southeast assessment noting industrial forestry infrastructure, and the West noting 

stewarding public lands and working forests. These, and the other values expressed, provide the basis for 

developing regional objectives, actions, performance measures, and areas to explore for reducing risk. 

Objectives and Actions – The RSCs adopted the national goals as their own and crafted a suite of initial 

objectives and actions to support each. All three regions developed information that includes the following: 

identification of values, trends and uncertainties, and the delineation of initial actions and objectives. This 

information, as identified in the regional assessments, will be valuable in Phase III of the Cohesive 

Strategy. 

Several cross-cutting objectives, so called because they will affect all three national goals simultaneously, 

were identified across the regions: 

(1) Collaboration and communication are the keys to success. Invest in, learn from, and build upon 

successful partnership and collaborative efforts, including land management plans, community 

wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) or their equivalent, and keep all parties informed and involved 

throughout the process. 

Wildfire near Lake City, Tennessee, threatening a residence. 

Credit: Tennessee Division of Forestry 
 3 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

(2) Develop and conduct effective education and outreach to empower citizen engagement in, and 

support for, wildland fire management activities. 

(3) Proactively use a variety of active vegetation management tools and techniques, such as 

prescribed fire and management of wildfire for multiple objectives where authorities exist, to 

achieve local and large landscape objectives. Communicate the benefits of doing so. 

(4) Support working forests, wildlands, and local economies, and collaborate to create jobs and diverse 

products and markets. Communicate the need and the resultant benefits. 

The RSCs will continue to coordinate with the National Science and Analysis Team (NSAT) to incorporate 

the best available science into the Cohesive Strategy. The NSAT supports the regions by using scientific 

information, data, and pre-existing models to develop a conceptual framework that describes the relative 

effectiveness of actions and activities for managing risks associated with wildland fire. All levels and 

committees—from the Wildland Fire Executive Council (WFEC) and RSCs to the Cohesive Strategy 

Subcommittee (CSSC), and the NSAT—will continue to work together in Phase III, as collectively, 

alternatives are explored and an analysis of alternatives is completed. 

There are two keys to the Cohesive Strategy’s success; the first is the commitment to collaborate. Working 

together will allow us to accomplish the goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy. The second is a requirement for a comprehensive communication and implementation strategy, 

which provides information and seeks feedback from all stakeholders throughout the process. 

During Phases I and II, inclusiveness and the enhanced level of collaboration brought a renewed, 

strengthened approach to developing potential solutions for more efficient and effective wildland fire 

management across the United States in the future. This national report summarizes regional ideas to 

conclude Phase II and sets the stage for Phase III of the Cohesive Strategy. 

Outreach and collaboration, June 2006. Credit: West Region 
May 2012 4 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

Fire is a natural process and a mechanism for biological renewal across forest and rangeland ecosystems. 

During the 20th century, Federal, state, and local firefighters were successful at putting out most wildland 

fires in the early stages. An unintended consequence was the overstocking of the Nation’s forests with 

trees and ladder fuels. These overstocked conditions combine with other stressors such as drought, insects 

and disease, invasive species, and longer, hotter summers to create uncharacteristically large wildfires that 

threaten homes, communities, and cultural and resource values, and can cause widespread property 

damage. 

Large, destructive wildfires led to the drafting of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program 

Review. The Review looked at wildland management fire issues, focused mainly on the Federal ownership, 

and included fuels management, the role of fire in the environment, and wildland-urban interface issues. 

The 1995 Review was updated in 2001—the year Congress passed the National Fire Plan. The National 

Fire Plan brought together diverse stakeholders, including Federal and state land management agencies, 

tribes, private landowners, local governments, and firefighting agencies to reduce fuels, protect 

communities through education and homeowner assistance, and improve firefighting capacity and 

coordination. 

The Quadrennial Fire and Fuels Review (QFFR) in 2005 and the Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR) in 2009 

were assessments intended to consider the present and look to the future, to advance a unified wildland 

fire management strategic vision for the five Federal resource management agencies under the 

Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA), in partnership with others in the wildland fire 

management community. The QFR anticipated future wildland fire management needs, risk to communities 

Wildfire in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Credit: Northeast Region 
 5 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

and firefighters, as well as described core mission strategies and key capabilities that could be applied to 

wildland fire management challenges. The QFR was also the first in what would become a series of 

reviews, plans, and strategies to move the fire community and the nation forward safely and more 

effectively. None, however, completely solved the problems, as communities and the wildland fire 

environment are constantly changing, requiring the fire community to do the same. 

Annual fire suppression costs are significant for Federal, state, and local governments and can cost in 

excess of $2 billion in particularly severe fire seasons. In 2009, the escalating Federal fire suppression 

costs and adverse impacts to other Federal land management programs led Congress to pass the Federal 

Land Assistance and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act), which authorized an additional funding source for 

Federal emergency wildland fire suppression. In addition, the FLAME Act directs the USDA and DOI to 

develop a national cohesive wildland fire management strategy to comprehensively address wildland fire 

management in the United States. 

The FLAME Act was the catalyst for developing a cohesive strategy for managing fire-prone landscapes 

and wildland fire across the Nation. Understanding the challenges presented required a holistic approach, 

unified thinking, and cooperation among the multitude of stakeholders who share concern for America’s 

landscapes, and led to the creation of a national cohesive strategy, not a Federal cohesive strategy. 

Within the fire community, a shared vision has taken shape: working together to prepare landscapes for 

natural fire occurrences, to prepare communities to face wildfire risks, and to coordinate effective wildland 

fire response. An example of this vision is the Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners. This is an 

organization of over 70 landowners and agencies (private, state, and Federal) that work together and 

strategize for wildfires that occur in and near the fire-prone Okefenokee Swamp in southeast Georgia. 

Previous collaborative efforts, as identified in Phase I of the Cohesive Strategy, highlighted the need for 

shared responsibilities, effective partnerships, improved interagency coordination and response, and active 

land management. The Association created an imperative for a new direction in expectations for Federal, 

state, and local wildland fire protection agencies to address our nation’s wildland fire problem at the most 

efficient cost. 

Wildlife in Okefenokee Refuge emerges after wildfire passes through. 

Credit: Southeast Region 
May 2012 6 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

The Cohesive Strategy is a national, collaborative approach to addressing wildland fire across all lands and 

jurisdictions. It is being developed with input from wildland fire management agencies and organizations, 

land managers, and policymaking officials representing all levels of governmental and non-governmental 

organizations. The Cohesive Strategy takes a holistic view of wildland fire and resource management, 

including natural wildland fire ignitions, prescribed fire for landscape management purposes, and pre and 

post wildfire management. The Cohesive Strategy presents a shared vision of the future of wildland fire and 

resource management. 

The WFLC establishes Cohesive Strategy guidance, vision, and goals. Decisions related to reducing risk 

will be made at local, regional and national levels. All three levels will be coordinated through the structure 

of the Cohesive Strategy. The Cohesive Strategy is built on several principles and values including 

engaging stakeholders, managers, and scientists; using the best available science, knowledge, and 

experience; and emphasizing partnerships and collaboration. 

Work from the bottom-up began in Phase II of the strategy with the creation of RSCs and the development 

of regional strategies. Those regional strategies will unite to form one national strategy. This Cohesive 

Strategy is different from all prior plans because of the collaborative process by which it was formulated. It 

is not merely a strategy for Federal agencies; it is a strategy for the many groups that have come together 

across the nation to combine their regional perspectives and create one shared vision of how all 

stakeholders can work together to reduce risks of wildland fire to landscapes, to communities, and to 

firefighters. The Cohesive Strategy is a collaborative effort to create and implement three regional 

strategies, tailored to meet regional needs and to work across land ownership boundaries. 

Guiding Principles and Core Values

During Phase I, guiding principles and core values were crafted through discussions with Federal, state, 

tribal, local governmental, and non-governmental organizational representatives. They are overarching 

principles that apply to all stakeholders in the wildland fire management community—and reach across the 

different goals of the strategy, from resilient landscapes and fire-adapted communities to wildfire response. 

The three RSCs adopted these guiding principles and core values as regional guiding principles: 

 Reducing risk to firefighters and the public is the first priority in every wildland fire management 

activity. 

 Sound risk management is the foundation for all management activities. 

 In accordance with management objectives, actively manage the land to make it more resilient to 

disturbance. 

 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. 
 7 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Federal, local, state, and tribal governments support one another with wildfire response. They 

engage in collaborative planning and the decisionmaking 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. 

 Wildland 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 Three National Goals

Flowing from the guiding principles and core values are the three national goals identified in the Cohesive 

Strategy. Each of the RSCs adopted these goals into their assessment and used them to further draft 

objectives, actions, and performance measures. The three national goals are: 

 Restore and Maintain Landscapes: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire-related 

disturbances in accordance with management objectives. 

 Fire-adapted Communities: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without 

loss of life and property. 

 Wildfire Response: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, 

efficient risk-based wildfire management decisions. 

Governance 

The WFLC oversees the Cohesive Strategy effort. In Phase II, the WFLC designated the Wildland Fire 

Executive Council (WFEC) to advise and make recommendations to the WFLC on the development and 

implementation of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. The WFEC is composed of 

representatives of Federal and state agencies, firefighting organizations, tribes, counties, and cities (see 

Appendix D). 

Organizational chart for Cohesive Strategy governance 
May 2012 8 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

The WFEC is supported by the Cohesive Strategy Subcommittee (CSSC), which was chartered by the 

WFEC at the beginning of Phase II to advise and make recommendations to WFLC on the development 

and execution of the proposed processes and tasks necessary to complete Phases II and III. 

The RSCs and their working groups were also chartered by WFEC at the beginning of Phase II. The RSCs 

are responsible for completing the regional strategies and assessments in Phase II. The CSSC reviewed all 

regional assessments to ensure that the documents meet the requirements specified in Phase I and meet 

the needs to complete Phase III. The National Science and Analysis Team (NSAT), which reports to the 

CSSC, will support the WFEC, CSSC, and RSCs as the Phase III trade-off analyses are completed. These 

groups—the CSSC, RSCs and their working groups, and the NSAT—will continue to function through 

Phase III and beyond. 

A Three-Phase Process 

The Cohesive Strategy has been structured as a three-phase process. Phase I began in March 2010 and 

was finished in March 2011 with the publication of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy and The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009: Report to 

Congress. Both documents were approved by WFLC and signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior. 

The WFLC guided Phase I and created the Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee (CSOC). The CSOC 

was the collaborative planning body that developed the blueprint for a national cohesive strategy through 

three regional strategies. The CSOC understood that different regions of the country had different needs 

and that a one-size-fits-all approach would not meet those needs. The CSOC provided a detailed 

foundation for the national framework for risk management and elaborated on the national guiding 

principles, challenges, goals, and governance. 

In Phase II, the CSOC transitioned into the CSSC. The WFEC and CSSC guided Phase II through 

completion of the regional assessments and drafting of the national report. Phase II was directed by the 

WFEC, through the CSSC, and developed by the RSCs, which are composed of representatives of Federal 

and state agencies, tribes, industry groups, counties, municipalities, and non-governmental organizations. 

An RSC was formed in each of the three regions—Northeast, Southeast, and West (see figure on page 9). 

Public outreach was conducted in each region, in the form of focus groups and forums, to increase 

awareness of the cohesive strategy process and to gather input regarding local and regional perceptions. 

Following the forums, the RSCs reviewed the public input and developed their objectives, with a catalog of 

potential actions and options for risk reduction. 

Phase II of the Cohesive Strategy provided a unique opportunity to the three regions of the country to chart 

their own course in reducing the risks posed by wildfire to multiple values. The RSCs came together with 

the support of working groups and broadened engagement of regional stakeholders, managers and 

analysts, non-governmental organizations and universities, to identify the challenges, values, and 

opportunities for improved land and fire management in their regions. This regional approach to Phase II of 

the Cohesive Strategy will result in a national strategy that is supported by local, regional, and national 

information, engagement and action. Regional assessments include obstacles (real and perceived) that 

stakeholders experience and identification of strategies to address them. 
 9 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

In Phase III, options for future alternatives will be explored using the Comparative Risk Assessment 

Framework and Tools (CRAFT) process, which integrates geographic features and risk factors relating to 

wildland fire with expressed values in a proven scientific analysis process. Results of the scientific analysis 

will be used by the WFEC, CSSC, and the RSCs for evaluating and determining future risk reduction 

strategies. 

The Cohesive Strategy is an iterative process that will be revisited approximately every 5 years. In addition, 

in 2012, the wildland firefighting agencies will begin working on the next QFR, which will be published in 

2013. The QFR will be aligned with the Cohesive Strategy, and future Cohesive Strategies and QFRs will 

build on each other. 

Comparative Risk Assessment within the Cohesive Strategy 

A key difference between the Cohesive Strategy effort and other collaborative planning efforts is in the 

method employed for planning and analysis. A comparative risk assessment tool was selected for use in 

Phases II and III, because it allows the consequences of alternative wildland fire management strategies to 

be evaluated. The CRAFT planning and analysis process implemented in Phase II guided each region in 

identifying values, goals, objectives, actions, and activities. Using the CRAFT framework, each RSC 

developed multiple management scenarios and will develop alternatives for meeting the goals and 

objectives identified. Unlike some past efforts, this effort will result in the development of multiple alternative 

strategies, where stakeholders and managers will consider the risk trade-off of each alternative in Phase III. 

The Phase I document characterized risk as “an inescapable component of living with wildfire” and offered 

common and scientific definitions of risk and risk management. 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 reasoning, 

one can view the Cohesive Strategy as a problem of risk management. That is, effective management 

Cohesive Strategy Regions: Northeast, Southeast, and West 
May 2012 10 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

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. Real-world constraints on available resources and administrative flexibility further require 

consideration of economic efficiency and practicality.

Given the premium placed on collaboration and engagement among all interested parties within the 

Cohesive Strategy, it is important that the quantitative aspects of risk assessment be embedded within a 

broader social discussion of values, options, potential consequences, and trade-offs inherent in any chosen 

strategy. The CRAFT is a structured process and set of tools designed to meet the needs of collaborative 

efforts to tackle complex resource management issues with conflicting values at stake and high levels of 

uncertainty. 

In conjunction with the NSAT, the RSCs embarked on the Phase II process, which included proposing 

regional objectives and designing initial alternatives. Each participant contributed to each step, although the 

role played by analysts and scientists differed from that of managers and stakeholders. The CRAFT is 

being used to help ensure consistency among RSCs and provides the framework for the work of the NSAT. 

Wildfire burnout operations, Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, June 2004. 

Credit: Florida Forest Service 
 11 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

REGIONAL STRATEGY COMMITTEES

Phase II gave the RSCs an opportunity to take ownership of regional ideas and goals. It improved working 

relationships among stakeholders, increased awareness of the wildland fire problems, and outlined options 

to be considered for dealing with these challenges from a variety of perspectives. In addition, the RSC 

members interacted with each other and with national-level stakeholders and decision-makers to share 

perspectives on natural resource management and wildland fire management in a unified, national process 

to collaboratively and holistically address wildland fire management. A collaborative spirit was fostered 

within the regions; and as partners, the regions will continue to enhance existing relationships and build 

new partnerships into the future. The RSCs and these relationships are critical for Phase III, as regions 

work to chart a course of action to implement collaborative management strategies and to use shared 

resources to achieve their common goals. 

The RSCs were supported in their efforts by the NSAT, which includes a range of individual scientists and 

analysts representing Federal and state agencies, tribes, universities, and non-governmental organizations. 

The NSAT created conceptual models to assist the RSCs in the Phase III assessment of the consequences 

of alternative wildland fire management strategies as a process for reducing risk. The RSCs sought input 

and engagement from additional stakeholders through forums and other means. Local input was solicited 

and provided to all the RSCs. The RSCs identified current successes, relationships, and opportunities for 

work that can be done before the completion of Phase III of the Cohesive Strategy. The CRAFT process 

will be carried through Phase III where it will provide input for analyzing the comparative risk of differing 

trade-offs for reducing risk. The RSCs developed regional assessments, which outlined their existing 

situation in qualitative terms, the values they hold in common, the trends they see occurring, and the 

objectives, actions, and activities they can undertake to achieve the national goals. 

The three regions are all very large, spanning multiple states and composed of a variety of geographic 

areas and vegetation types. States and regions possess detailed information relating to wildland fire as it 

interfaces with broad land management objectives. This information is included in state and local 

assessments, management plans, and policies. Phase II incorporates local information, along with 

expertise and insights from the stakeholders who have been living and working in the region, dealing with 

wildland fire and natural resource problems. An example of the uniqueness of the regions and the 

challenges those differences present can be seen in a difference in land ownership patterns. The Northeast 

and the Southeast are characterized by private land with intense fragmentation of ownership, while the 

West is dominated by large blocks of public land. All states have Federal, state, local, and private land 

within them. Each unique ownership pattern presents challenges in wildland fire management, and Phase II 

allows the regions to articulate those challenges and collaboratively develop solutions within a national 

framework. 
May 2012 12 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

PHASE II – REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS AND

STRATEGIES

The three regional assessments are separate documents reflecting the unique context in each of the 

regions. This document highlights the similarities and differences among the three regions and their 

strategies for reducing wildland fire risk, and includes section summaries with excerpts from the content of 

the regional assessments. The regional assessments have expanded discussion and also provide detail on 

the potential actions and activities identified by the regions for Phase III analysis. 

The CRAFT framework provided a list of 26 questions for the regions to consider as they created their 

regional assessments (see Appendix E). The CRAFT questions were selected to identify regional 

challenges and opportunities and to guide the conversations during Phase II. These conversations included 

forums and comments by stakeholders and the deliberations of the RSCs. By focusing on a discrete set of 

questions, the regional assessments yielded consistent types of information and have created the building 

blocks for analysis in Phase III. 

The regional assessments describe the overall conditions and context of wildland fire and wildfire response 

in each region. They describe the values—both ecological and social—within the regions and the trends 

and uncertainties relating to wildland fire and risks to landscapes and communities. The assessments 

identify the unique legal, regulatory, and jurisdictional environment in which wildland fire and resource 

management agencies operate nationally and regionally. Utilizing this framework of regional context, 

conditions, values, trends, uncertainties, and policies and regulations, the RSCs developed objectives and 

actions and activities in an initial objectives hierarchy for each region. The RSCs also began work on initial 

alternatives, or combinations of actions and activities under a defined future scenario, for reducing risk. The 

RSCs will continue this work to refine specific alternatives in Phase III with added support from the NSAT. 

Aftermath of Hughes Lake Fire, Michigan. Credit: Northeast Region 
 13 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Regional Conditions and Context 

The following paragraphs demonstrate that although many conditions were common among the regions, 

the three regions also face differing wildland fire management problems due to their unique geography, 

climate, and land ownership patterns. 

The conditions and context common to all regions include: 

 Existing collaborative efforts to suppress wildfire. 

 Population growth in the wildland-urban interface and in densely populated areas, which can 

contribute to increased wildfire suppression costs. 

 Diverse land ownership and management. 

 Seasonal and extended drought conditions, which can contribute to more severe wildfire behavior. 

Northeast Region

Twenty densely populated states comprise the Northeast Region, where the vast majority of the land is in 

private ownership, and wildfires occur primarily in the spring, fall, and summer. Local partnerships focus on 

initial attack and extinguishing fires quickly. In addition, fire suppression is enhanced through interstate 

compacts among the states and with Canada. 

Northeast Region land ownership 

Northeast Region land ownership 
May 2012 14 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Lands are owned and held in stewardship by a diversity of individuals—tribes, industries, organizations, 

and local, state, and Federal agencies. Land uses and ownership patterns are complex, with many small inholdings creating a diverse range of owner objectives. Public lands are often isolated among other land 

uses, including private and industrial forests and agricultural lands. Diverse land management and 

ownership patterns, hazardous fuels situations created by the occurrence of natural and weather or climate 

events, high wildfire occurrence, and an extensive wildland-urban interface characterize the Northeast 

Region. 

Southeast Region 

Stretching from the Atlantic seaboard through Texas, 13 states comprise the Southeast Region. High 

wildland fire occurrence, a year-round fire season, and rapid regrowth of vegetation/fuels characterize the 

wildland fire management problem in the Southeast. Land ownership is highly fragmented with the majority 

of forestlands in private ownership. Fragmentation poses a challenge to a coherent policy of landscape 

management and fuels reduction. A culture of prescribed burning exists in the Southeast and is essential to 

managing fuel loads. The Southeast implements more prescribed burns, with more acres treated, than any 

other region, mostly on private land. 

Southeast Region land ownership 

Southeast Region land ownership 
 15 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

West Region

Spanning nearly half of the continental United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and the affiliated Pacific 

Islands, 17 states comprise the West Region. Wildland fire management in the West is challenging due to a 

variety of issues including the following: steepness of terrain, access limitations, changing climate, and 

invasive species. In areas managed for wilderness values, wildland fire management may focus on 

maintaining wilderness characteristics rather than a full suppression response. Many parts of the West are 

experiencing extended drought for more than a decade. Drought is one stressor that leads to increased 

wildfire threats. A stressed system or forest is more susceptible to infestations of insects, pathogens, and 

disease, which can kill vegetation, and, in some areas has left millions of acres of dead, standing trees (see 

Appendix F). The West has seen a rapid escalation of severe wildfire behavior over the past two decades, 

which among other factors has resulted in increased wildfire suppression costs, significant home and 

property losses, and increased threats to communities. Wildfires in the West result in complex, costly 

efforts for post-fire restoration due to steep topography, threats to a clean water supply, and highly erosive 

soils and flooding. 

West Region land ownership 
May 2012 16 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Percentage of Federal lands within each state (see O’Laughlin 2011) 

Policies and Regulations

Wildland fire and resource management decisions are guided and informed by a suite of laws, regulations 

and administrative policies that exist at the Federal, state, tribal, and local levels. Interpretation of the 

laws, policies and regulations ultimately determines management activities. Each of the regions identified 

a suite of significant Federal, state, local and tribal laws, regulations, and policies, which guide 

management activities and impact the accomplishment of wildland fire and resource management goals, 

including but not limited to the following: 

 National Environmental Policy Act; 

 Endangered Species Act; 

 National Forest Management Act; 

 Clean Air Act; and 

 USDA Forest Service’s National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule, among others. 

State laws and policies also guide management activities and impact accomplishment of wildland fire and 

resource management goals, which include the following: 

 Mandates to suppress wildland fire on state and private lands; 

 Laws and policies that limit or prevent the use of prescribed fire and/or the use of fire for resource 

benefit; 
 17 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Water quality standards; 

 Differing state laws governing jurisdictional responsibilities for wildfire suppression, prescribed fire 

operations, and open burning permits; 

 State statutes governing wildfire and emergency management training requirements; 

 Liability laws; and 

 Air quality standards and policies pertaining to smoke management and emissions permitting . 

Values

Values are characteristics or qualities of life considered significant with respect to personal or cultural 

importance, worth (whether intrinsic or monetary), usefulness, or excellence. Questions in the CRAFT 

framework guided the RSCs in delineating their primary values relating to wildland fire and resource 

management. 

Stakeholder input, RSC and working group members’ professional observations, peer-reviewed literature, 

and earlier analyses identified values through both Phase I and Phase II of the Cohesive Strategy. The 

following values are common to all regions: 

 Safety of firefighters and the public. Public and firefighter safety was the value most consistently 

shared by stakeholders across the regions and is expressed as a national core value. Firefighter 

injuries and fatalities occur for a number of reasons including aircraft and vehicle accidents, heart 

attacks, smoke inhalation, and burns. Public safety concerns related to wildfires include 

evacuations, protecting home and property, and post-fire trauma or distress. Other issues that can 

affect the safety of firefighters and the public are the following: access issues in rural areas, 

visibility on roads during wildfire or prescribed fire events, water supplies for firefighting, predictive 

capabilities, and communications on the fire line, among others. 

 Protection of private property. Landowners have diverse interests and objectives for their land 

including wildlife habitat, recreation, timber production, tax interests, and aesthetics. Many value 

their individual liberties and private property rights, admire self-reliance, a sense of community, and 

a strong sense of connection with the land. 

 Water conservation and quality. There is 

near-universal agreement on the ecological 

and public value of the clean, generally 

abundant water supplies that sustain 

human and animal life, supply drinking 

water, support healthy fisheries, generate 

electric power for homes and industries, 

and irrigate crops. 

 Air quality. Similar to water conservation, 

high air quality, good visibility, and low 

levels of smoke, smog, or other pollutants 

or respiratory health hazards also rank at 

or near the top of amenity values. 

Private home sprinkler in Minnesota. 

Credit: Northeast Region 
May 2012 18 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Maintenance and enhancement of local economies. Many stakeholders expressed the need to 

maximize return on investment and use economic principles to achieve environmental objectives. 

The forest products industry can play a crucial role in providing cost-effective and efficient 

landscape restoration that supports rural economies, and fuels the creation of temporary and longterm employment. Recreation and tourism are also key components of many rural economies. 

 Restoration of healthy and resilient landscapes. Healthy ecosystems provide numerous ecological 

services, support a variety of land uses (hunting, fishing, recreation, farming, ranching, timber, 

mining, etc.), offer a desirable backdrop and physical setting for homes and communities, and 

support a plethora of historic, spiritual, and cultural resources. Fire-resilient landscapes are resilient 

to other disturbance processes that can degrade ecosystem services (pollination, carbon 

sequestration, ground water recharge, and harvestable populations of fish, game, plants, etc.), food 

and materials production, recreational value, scenic beauty, and sense of solitude. 

 Protection of scenic viewsheds (visible natural environment). The aesthetic appearance of the 

landscape is important, and management activities that are perceived as having a negative impact 

on that appearance are often resisted even if the activities reduce risk posed by wildfire. Scenic 

areas contribute to viable recreation and tourism based local economies. 

 Honoring tribal heritages, traditional values, and land uses. Preserving and respecting traditional 

uses and practices is vitally important. Wildland fire and resource management policies and 

practices need to take into account cultural values and beliefs, related historic and spiritual sites 

and resources, and the relevant lessons to be gleaned from traditional ecological knowledge. 

Timber resources are a valuable trust asset, and tribes accept and generally encourage timber 

management that results in healthy forests and local economic gains. Being a firefighter is a 

respected and desired profession, and firefighting is an economic benefit in tribal communities. 

Florida Forest Service tractor plow units engaged in wildfire suppression. 

Credit: Florida Forest Service 
 19 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Although the three regions share many similar values, each region has specific values, and some examples 

from the three regional assessments are presented in the following paragraphs. 

Specific Northeast Regional Values 

The Northeast RSC identified a variety of specific values and grouped the values according to five themes: 

Land and Resources, Protection of Private Property and Investment, Willingness to Collaborate, Education 

and Awareness, and Create Partnerships across Jurisdictions: 

Land and Resources 

Recreation: The Northeast contains a large portion of the country’s population and wildland-urban 

interface areas. Many residents and visitors use wildlands for recreational activities such as 

hunting, fishing, camping, bird watching, mountain biking, hiking, and leaf-peeping. Wildfire and 

wildland fire management activities can impact trails, campgrounds, wildlife habitat, and cause 

temporary closures for public safety, potentially negatively affecting recreational opportunities in the 

short and/or long term. 

Forest product markets are crucial to local and regional economies of many northeastern states. 

Protection of the forest resource to provide raw materials is essential, and a robust forest products 

industry provides a cost-effective means for reducing hazardous fuels and achieving resilient firedependent ecosystems.

Willingness to Collaborate and Create Partnerships Across Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions and ownership: The Northeast is a patchwork of jurisdictions and ownership; and 

often, more than one entity is involved in managing wildland fire. This strategy will include many 

stakeholders at various levels, and 

it will need buy-in by many parties 

to be successful. 

Coordinated efforts to engage 

the public in issues and 

collaboration with all stakeholders 

will enable effective and efficient 

wildland fire management. As 

much as coordination and 

collaboration are considered 

important for the Cohesive 

Strategy to be successful, it must 

ensure that partners are able to 

maintain their unique missions 

and values. Because of the many 

geographic and cultural divisions 

of the Northeast, flexibility in implementing the strategy will be imperative. 

Education and Awareness

Continued engagement with the public on wildland fire management issues is crucial. Lack of 

action on the part of the public or landowner is not necessarily due to lack of knowledge and 

New Hampshire mutual aid equipment. 

Credit: Northeast Region 
May 2012 20 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

understanding of the wildland fire risk. Trust in those conveying the information and the availability 

of personal resources to mitigate the wildland fire risk are also necessary. Educational 

programming should provide consistent messages, be realistic and related to local values and 

needs, and encourage personal responsibility. Prevention education can have a significant impact 

on reducing wildfires in this region where greater than 95 percent of the fires are human caused. 

Specific Southeast Regional Values 

Diverse values are associated with wildland fire and resource management in the Southeast. The 

Southeast RSC broadly categorized these values into five overarching categories of values: ecosystem, 

infrastructure, societal, economic, and wildland fire management. 

The Ecosystem includes values associated with biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and healthy forest/

landscapes, as well as the air and water quality components, many of which are fire-adapted and 

require periodic burning to maintain characteristic ecosystem structure and diversity. 

The Infrastructure System contains values associated with human infrastructure, habitations, 

other structures, and private property. 

The Societal System

encompasses human, 

social, and cultural values. 

Fire (both wildland fire and 

prescribed burns) has a 

significant place in the 

history and culture of the 

Southeast. Historically, 

individual landowners 

played a large role in 

prescribed burning, and the 

tradition continues today. As 

fire was limited throughout 

the United States during the 

first half of the 20th century, 

Southerners continued to 

implement prescribed burns 

to support traditional land 

uses, for aesthetic 

purposes and for fuel 

reduction. The values 

gathered under the Societal System include: 

 Aesthetics – viewsheds and indirect community benefits. 

 Quality of life – human health and safety, clean water, public services, safety for wildland 

fire responders. 

 Land use – traditional land uses (e.g., hunting, recreation, grazing, farming, and 

silviculture), tribal issues, community involvement in and acceptance of wildland fire 

management and prescribed fire. 

Wildfire in wildland-urban interface near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

Credit: South Carolina Forestry Commission 
 21 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

The Economic System includes values related to direct and indirect costs of wildland fires 

(suppression expenditures as well as short and long term impacts to economies related to 

silviculture and biomass, tourism, and recreation). Though wildland fire response may create a 

small increase in short-term employment, wildfires may have a significant negative, long-term 

impact on local economies that rely on working forests, recreation and/or tourism. Wildfire can 

cause economic devastation in the region, damaging or destroying marketable timber, biomass and 

other forest products, and can also create costs associated with restoration activities. Failing to 

implement the full range of wildland fire management options can also have negative effects on 

local economies where natural systems rely on active land management practices such as 

prescribed fire to maintain landscape resiliency. 

The Fire Management System includes values related to wildland fire response capacity and 

capability, interagency collaboration and coordination across jurisdictions, training and planning to 

ensure adequate resource availability, and succession planning. 

Specific West Regional Values

The West RSC identifies many values similar to those of the other two regions; however, the following 

values are expressed specifically by the West: 

Valuing people for who they are, not for what they have in the bank: Western communities and 

their individual residents differ widely in their technical, infrastructural, social, and economic 

capacity to locally address wildland fire management issues. Management strategies need to 

recognize those differences, so that future responsibilities and resources can be allocated 

appropriately. 

Living and respecting the Western or frontier culture: Among the key (and sometimes 

contradictory) elements of the culture of the West are a spirit of adventure and curiosity, concern 

for preserving individual liberties and private property rights, admiration of self-reliance (but quick 

response to neighbors needing help), and a strong sense of connection with the land. Management 

strategies seen as directive or imposed from afar are almost certain to be less well received (and 

often prove less effective) than ones developed locally and collaboratively. 

Enjoying vast, wild, open landscapes: The land provides numerous ecological services; supports 

a variety of land uses (hunting, fishing, recreation, farming, ranching, timber, mining, etc.); offers a 

desirable backdrop and physical setting for homes and communities; and supports a plethora of 

historic, spiritual, cultural resources, and dynamic and diverse habitats. The appearance of the 

landscape is important, and aesthetics vary by individual, and management activities that are 

perceived as having a negative impact on that appearance are usually resisted. 

Using and stewarding public lands: Public lands comprise more than half the total land area of 

the West, and maintaining public access to the lands has long been a treasured—and zealously 

guarded—Western value. There is a clear need for improved communication and cooperation 

among all landowners, managers, and other concerned stakeholders in restoring and maintaining 

the on-the-ground conditions and practices necessary to preserve the watersheds, critical habitats, 

and other Western values to be protected from uncharacteristic wildfire. The growing numbers of 

large landscape-scale community wildland fire protection plans, multiple-ownership hazardous fuels 

reduction projects, and landscape restoration efforts will be significant elements of future wildland 

fire management strategies. 
May 2012 22 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Trends and Uncertainties 

Response, input, and observations also reveal trends or general directions of concern in wildland fire 

management and common uncertainties that must be considered in developing and implementing the 

Cohesive Strategy. As with the values, all regions identified the following trends and uncertainties: 

 Population growth; 

 Increasing wildland-urban interface; 

 Changing climate; 

 Invasive species spread; 

 Changing public expectations with regard to wildland fire response; 

 Economic fluctuations; 

 Parcellation; and 

 Increasing role of traditional wildland fire capability (equipment and personnel) in other disaster and 

all-hazard response. 

Each region also had trends and uncertainties specific to their region, as identified below. 

Northeast Region

Lack of Fire: Lack of fire has created two primary issues in the Northeast. First, fire-dependent 

ecosystems continue to change without fire on the landscape. Fire regimes have departed from 

historical conditions, and fire-dependent plants are being replaced by shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive 

vegetation. Although this vegetation change can benefit areas (such as the wildland-urban 

interface) where there are values to be protected, negative impacts to the function of and services 

from fire-dependent ecosystems can be severe. Shade tolerant forests are not excluded from wind, 

ice, and drought events, nor are they immune to insects and disease such as emerald ash borer, 

eastern hemlock woolly adelgid, or beech bark disease, all of which can increase fuel loading that 

may lead to more extreme fire behavior and negative impacts. 

The second primary issue is complacency on several levels. The Northeast can be described in risk 

management terms as low occurrence but high risk. Unlike the West, which has large, significant 

fires on an annual basis, or the Southeast, which has a history and culture of fire (both wildfire and 

prescribed), the Northeast neither has large fires on a regular basis nor does prescribed fire play a 

significant role. Long intervals between large wildfire events create challenges in investment 

strategies in preparedness, whether by governments or homeowners. Wildfire preparedness at the 

local fire department level can be overshadowed or downplayed because of the responsibility for 

more frequent all-hazard and medical emergency response. 

Fire-related Science: An abundance of fire-related science is pertinent to most areas in the 

Northeast. The challenge for fire managers as well as land managers will be synthesizing and 

applying the abundant science to their local conditions to plan and implement fire management 

objectives on small parcels and landscapes, and across ownerships. 
 23 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Forest products industry: The forest products industry is integral to cost-effective landscape 

restoration, hazard mitigation, and fuels reduction. Industry infrastructure (skills and equipment) for 

using pulp, saw timber, and biomass is necessary for cost-effective treatments. Lack of a 

sustainable supply of wood has caused industry infrastructure to decline or disappear in some 

areas like Illinois and Indiana. In other areas with abundant supplies of wood, the recent decline in 

the forest products industry has forced many forest product companies to close. When 

infrastructure and skills are lost, costs for services increase. There is a reluctance to invest in high 

value equipment and facilities when uncertainties exist, such as sustainable supply or contracts for 

services. It is unclear how the demand for wood products, including biomass, will impact wildland 

fire management in the Northeast. Currently, where biomass markets are available, nonmerchantable material can be treated and 

disposed of at a lower cost. 

Prescribed burning is accomplished on a 

small but increasing percentage of the region; 

state and Federal agencies conduct most 

activities. Uncertainties exist related to how 

much should or could be burned given the 

capacity of agencies and organizations, 

budgets, air quality issues related to smoke, 

and other local concerns. More expertise with 

smoke modeling, particularly in the highly 

dissected landscapes, is needed to avoid 

putting too much smoke into communities. 

Improved ability to identify and work with those 

households and individuals with smoke-related 

health concerns is also needed. Sharing and learning from successful projects can contribute to 

building capacity and responding to these issues. 

Southeast Region 

While changes in the southeastern United States are rapid, no single driver dominates; instead, a 

combination of processes will determine the future of the region’s landscapes. Changes in demographics, 

land ownership patterns, socio-economic conditions, firefighting capacity, and Rural Fire Department (RFD) 

training and retention rates will also impact the occurrence of and ability to manage wildland fire. 

Private land ownership: Changes in the patterns and trends in land ownership in the Southeast 

create challenges related to wildland fire management. The majority of forest land in the Southeast 

is privately owned and managed, and most of the holdings are relatively small. The divestiture of 

three quarters of the region’s industrial timberlands since 1998 has contributed to ownership 

fragmentation, making landscape scale management more complex. The trend away from 

intensive forest management (also a result of divestiture) leads to increased fuel loads and the 

potential for more intense wildland fires. Traditionally, public and private land managers have relied 

on prescribed fire for fuels management. As surrounding lands are developed, the effective use of 

prescribed burning will be impacted, leading to more costly management techniques (e.g., 

mechanical clearing to avoid short term smoke impacts) or potentially increasing the risk of 

wildland fire. 

Understanding of wildland fire: Demographic shifts are also expected to impact wildland fire 

management. Populations in the region are becoming increasingly diverse, with new residents 

representing a broad range of ages, ethnicities, backgrounds, and varying levels of understanding 

Blowdown prescribed burn in Minnesota. 

Credit: Northeast Region 
May 2012 24 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

of wildland fire. Some areas with high rates of citizen turnover make wildland fire education and the 

use of prescribed burning a challenge. In these areas, every new cohort of citizens has to be 

educated with respect to wildland fire, the use of prescribed burning, smoke management, and 

effective land management of their own property to reduce wildland fire risk. Each transfer of 

ownership has been shown to increase the potential for moving away from traditional management 

toward a less intensive approach (increasing fuels) and/or toward development (increasing 

wildland-urban interface). 

Rural Fire Departments: The state forestry agencies rely heavily on RFDs to provide initial 

wildfire response and reporting. RFDs assist in suppressing many ignitions before they grow large 

enough to pose a threat to people and values to be protected. However, RFDs experience high 

turnover rates; training and retention are constant challenges for RFDs and the state forestry 

organizations that support them. 

Economic trends: Increasing demand for softwood and bio-energy production is expected to 

impact some areas of the Southeast. The impact on wildland fire from this increase in demand is 

unclear. 

West Region

In addition to the trends and uncertainties shared among the regions, the West RSC addresses additional 

issues including the following: 

 Increased incidence and spread of uncharacteristically large wildfires. 

Abnormally large fires and long-duration fires have been prevalent in the past 20 years in the West 

due to a variety of factors such as fuels accumulation and changing climatic conditions. 

 Proposed listing of endangered species. 

A number of species have been proposed for listing, and the potential exists for additional species 

to be listed, creating uncertainty and challenges for land and fire management planning and 

implementation. 

 Degradation of drinking water and watersheds. 

In steep terrain, sediment and debris and other materials are common and may have short term 

impacts on water quality and in many cases lead to a longer term impact on water quality and 

quantity. 

 Spread of native and non-native insects and pathogens. 

Broad areas of the West have been and continue to be susceptible to outbreaks of undesirable 

insects, pathogens, and disease. Activities to reduce the spread of insects and pathogens are 

often costly and in some cases ineffective. 

 Need for improved succession planning to ensure adequate staffing and training of wildland fire 

responders. 

Many long-tenured employees within the fire management community are eligible for retirement, 

which may create gaps in capabilities and institutional knowledge that are critical for fire 

management and response. 

 Decline of the forest products industry (i.e., loss of infrastructure and skilled labor) and growth of a 

biomass industry and alternative markets have affected and will continue to affect local, rural 

economies. 
 25 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

The decline in the Western forest products industry may be a result of a variety of circumstances, 

such as high fuel prices, less expensive foreign subsidized wood product markets, and appeals 

and litigation. 

The prevalence of collaboration and large scale collaborative planning is a significant positive trend in the 

West that the West RSC seeks to build upon in developing its assessment and strategy. 

Objectives and Actions 

The aim of the Cohesive Strategy is to produce a strategy for achieving the national goals and reducing 

risks posed by wildland fire that incorporates objectives and actions at the national, regional, and local 

level. While no two regions identify initial objectives and potential actions in exactly the same language, 

there are significant elements held in common among all three regions. There are also objectives and 

actions specific to each region. The following sections outline the initial objectives and a snapshot of 

potential actions developed by the RSCs. Initial objectives and potential actions are not presented in order 

of priority within this report. 

Objectives Common to All Regions 

Each of the RSCs identified broad and strategic objectives that will contribute toward success in each of 

the three national goals identified in the Cohesive Strategy. Cross-cutting objectives that relate to all three 

of the national goals are presented below, along with objectives common to all regions for each national 

goal. 

Cross-Cutting Objectives to Meet Multiple Goals 

 Invest in, learn from, and build upon successful partnerships and collaboration efforts. 

 Develop and conduct effective 

education and outreach to 

empower citizen engagement in 

and support for wildland fire 

management activities. 

 Proactively use a variety of active 

vegetation management tools 

and techniques such as 

prescribed fire and management 

of wildfire for multiple objectives 

where authorities exist to achieve 

local and large landscape 

objectives. 

 Support working forests and 

wildlands, local economies and 

jobs, and diverse products and 

markets. 

Maine wildland-urban interface fuel chipping. 

Credit: Northeast Region 
May 2012 26 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Restore and Maintain Resilient Landscapes 

Despite the unique regional ecosystems and socio-economic contexts under which objectives and 

actions have been developed, a number of ideas emerge that can be considered common across two 

or more regions with regard to restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes. 

 Address ongoing and episodic (e.g., invasive species, insects and disease, storms) non-fire 

threats that may increase susceptibility to wildland fire. 

 Develop and sustain capacity (e.g., skills, resources, and infrastructure) to plan and carry out 

landscape treatments. 

 Use existing authorities to collaboratively plan and implement landscape treatments in the most 

effective and cost-efficient means. 

 Foster communication and promote strategic interagency policy development and planning across 

agencies, organizations, and the public. 

 Increase public awareness to ensure acceptance and active participation in efforts to achieve 

landscape objectives. 

Fire-adapted Communities 

The three RSCs express their vision of creating fire-adapted communities quite differently, but these 

elements that contribute to creating fire-adapted communities are held in common: 

 Reduce unwanted human-caused wildland fire ignitions in and near communities. 

 Support community wildland fire protection planning. 

Invasive grasses (light yellow in the foreground) are fuel for fires during drought years. The dark 

green patches in the background are native grasses which can "mine" stored water from rock layers 

under valley floors to better tolerate droughts. From Canyonlands National Park, Utah. 
 27 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Wildland Fire Response 

Given the very different wildland fire environments in the Northeast, Southeast, and West, approaches 

to improving wildland fire response differ. Three common, overarching elements are: 

 Providing for firefighter and public safety; 

 Ensuring appropriate capacity; and 

 Improving effectiveness and efficiency of the wildland fire management organization. 

Specific Regional Objectives – Cross-cutting 

Based on specific regional conditions and stakeholder engagement, the Northeast, Southeast, and West 

identified, individually, the following concepts as cross-cutting, in that they affect all three of the national 

goals. 

Northeast Region 

Although not stated as cross-cutting actions, per se, these three items are the “three main 

recommendations that emerged from a collaborative effort to identify, define, and address wildland 

fire management problems and opportunities in the Northeast Region of the United States.”

 Invest in successful partnerships and collaboration. 

 Invest in local resources for wildland fire response. 

 Invest in joint management planning and implementation that achieves strategic objectives 

and reduces the effects of fragmentation of fire-dependent landscapes. 

Southeast Region

The Southeast RSC identified several actions and activities common across the national goals and 

regional objectives. These actions should be considered part of each of the regional objectives. This 

concept is particularly important for the modeling work to be done in Phase III since it outlines how 

each action is related to the regional objectives and national goals. 

 Conduct education and 

outreach to incorporate all 

Southeastern residents as 

active participants in fireadapted communities and 

wildfire prevention, 

landscape restoration, 

including prescribed fire 

and fuels management. 

 Encourage the 

standardization of a 

simplified fire reporting 

system so that all fires, 

regardless of jurisdiction, 

are captured. 

Prescribed burn. Credit: Georgia Forestry Commission 
May 2012 28 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Support for maintaining working forest and viable forest products markets. 

 Expand the use of prescribed burning. 

The Southeast RSC also agreed on three strategic opportunities for reducing fire threat and 

impact. Similar to the main recommendations from the Northeast RSC, these concepts are critical 

to achieving success across the three national goals. They add detail and context to the crosscutting actions listed above, as well as individual objectives under each goal. 

 Expand outreach and education to landowners and residents, particularly those new to the 

region and/or with a non-traditional ownership background. The outreach and education 

should stress prevention, increase awareness and acceptance of wildland fire 

management activities across the landscape, explain smoke dynamics between wildland 

fire and prescribed fire, and encourage wildland-urban interface residents to take personal 

responsibility for making their home and communities more fire-adapted. 

 Enhance collaboration, training, and capacity-building across agencies to increase 

firefighter safety, wildfire response, and management effectiveness. 

 Continue proactive fuels mitigation through all management techniques including 

prescribed burning to allow for maintenance of ecosystem function and to reduce fire 

hazard. 

West Region

The West RSC went through a process in developing the objectives hierarchy that initially included 

a great deal of repetition of ideas common across the national goals and regional objectives. The 

West RSC ultimately chose to highlight these actions as Common Across the Three National 

Goals to underscore their fundamental importance to being successful in implementing the 

Cohesive Strategy. 

 Invest in efforts that have a track record of success in meeting community and landscape 

objectives through effective collaboration, including leveraging investment capability and 

implementing actions to mitigate 

barriers and improve success. 

Use the lessons learned from 

these efforts to inform and 

encourage the development of 

similar capacity in other 

communities. Provide 

collaboration training and 

assistance where needed to 

facilitate planning. 

 Use a variety of active 

vegetation management tools 

and techniques, including 

planned and unplanned wildland 

fire, to achieve local and large 

landscape objectives. Emphasize the design and use of treatments that reduce hazardous 

fuels and contribute to resilient landscapes while meeting social and economic needs. 

Active vegetation management in Oregon. 

Credit: West Region 
 29 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Collaboratively identify post-fire hazards in advance of fire seasons to clarify roles and 

responsibilities, position for the best response to post-fire natural hazard impacts on 

landscapes and communities, and use the local workforce to perform work whenever 

possible. 

 Support existing industries (e.g., forest products, grazing, fishing, hunting, tourism, 

recreation, and energy and minerals development) and encourage new markets 

(e.g., biomass) that facilitate implementation of landscape treatments where sustainable 

and economically feasible. Support employment conditions consistent with existing hiring 

practices and processes that lead to fair competition and the creation of family-wage jobs. 

 Combine the best elements of existing education programs to create a West-wide wildland 

fire management education campaign with a strong, visible, and memorable message. 

Specific Regional Objectives – Restore and Maintain Resilient Landscapes

The following objectives support the national goal related to restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes. 

Northeast Region

Objectives and actions specific to challenges in the Northeast Region (e.g., fragmentation, 

hazardous fuels, episodic events, lack of active management in fire-dependent ecosystems) seek 

to restore landscapes that are resilient to fire, provide habitat to the organisms that depend on 

them, and present low risk to the human communities that border them and the firefighters who 

protect them. The RSC members and stakeholders who developed the Northeast Regional 

Assessment believe that the most resilient landscapes in the Northeast will be achieved by 

thoughtful planning and management. Restoring landscapes is a regional interest, and fire 

resiliency is one piece of this interest. 

 Restore and maintain structure, composition, and function of fire-dependent communities 

(e.g., jack pine systems, oak woodlands, prairie and grasslands, barrens, and savannas). 

 Treat (weather/pest/drought-related) event fuels expeditiously in fire-dependent and nonfire-dependent landscapes. 

 Protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal and plant habitat. 

 Prevent the spread of invasive plants. 

 Maintain/increase skills and resource capacity to return fire to fire-dependent landscapes. 

 Improve treatment effectiveness and wildland fire planning using the best available 

science. 

 Identify and address barriers and conflicts that prevent full coordination and collaboration. 

 Foster communication among stakeholders and build partnerships. 

 Reduce landscape fragmentation by building shared objectives. 

 Utilize existing Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) and Burned Area 

Rehabilitation (BAR) expertise to continue to identify and treat invasive organisms, water 

quality issues, and erosion. 
May 2012 30 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Southeast Region

Response to this goal in the Southeast acknowledges the challenge of maintaining or restoring 

landscapes in a complex environment of many small landowners; the objectives focus on a need for 

locally calibrated, proactive treatment to restore and maintain landscapes. Resilient landscapes are 

resilient to fire and balance the need to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk to wildland-urban interface 

communities throughout the Southeast. Healthy working forests are a part of the Southeast’s 

cultural heritage, as well as a critical part of the regional economy. The region’s diversity and 

uniqueness means that restoring and maintaining landscapes is a critical goal. The wildland fire 

management community agrees that flexibility to select locally appropriate management techniques 

must be retained and encouraged so that prescribed burns can be implemented where appropriate 

and feasible, while in other areas mechanical treatments may be the only option. One key objective 

is identifying and focusing on the areas in which limited resources can be leveraged or combined to 

create the most significant impact on restoring landscapes and reducing the risk of catastrophic 

wildfires. However, rapid urbanization and soaring populations within the Southeast may 

necessitate a greater focus on communities and the wildland-urban interface rather than 

landscapes. Therefore, although restore and maintain landscapes is a priority goal in the Southeast, 

management directives must be written with the understanding that restoration efforts may not be 

feasible in certain areas of the Southeast where human structures mingle with fire adapted 

landscapes in the wildland-urban interface. 

 Build and maintain resiliency in southeastern landscapes through strategic use of 

prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, grazing, etc., and manage wildfire where and when 

appropriate, based on ownership and landscape context. 

 Promote strategic interagency policy development and planning across agencies, 

organizations, and the public to more effectively integrate wildland fire planning into landuse planning and economic development. 

 Develop and sustain capability and capacity required to plan and carry out landscape 

treatments, including prescribed fire. 

 Encourage increased public awareness to ensure public acceptance and active 

participation in achieving landscape objectives. 

 Mitigate environmental threats other than wildland fire (i.e., storm damage, insects, ice 

storms, hurricanes, insects, and disease) that reduce ecosystem vitality and increase 

susceptibility to wildfire. 

West Region

Sustaining landscape resiliency and the role of wildland fire as a critical ecological process in the 

West requires the following: a mix of actions that are consistent with management objectives; the 

use of all available methods and tools; the consideration and conservation of a diversity of 

ecological, social, and economic values; sincere coordination and integration with all partners; and 

support for market-based, flexible, proactive solutions that take advantage of economies of scale. 

All aspects of wildland fire will be used to restore and maintain resilient landscapes. 

 Actively manage the land to achieve healthy forest and rangeland conditions. 

 Protect landscapes and multiple values from the effects of unwanted fire. 

 Improve interagency and stakeholder coordination and planning of actions that contribute to 

achieving landscape resiliency. 
 31 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Develop and maintain professional and industrial capacity to implement cost-effective and 

sustainable landscape treatments and support local economies. 

 Fully use existing policies and procedures to provide the management flexibility needed to 

implement a mix of landscape treatments. 

 Increase public awareness, acceptance, and active participation in achieving landscape 

objectives using all available tools. 

 Identify and prepare for non-fire threats and disturbances that may increase susceptibility 

to wildland fire and/or impair ecosystem function. 

Specific Regional Objectives – Fire-adapted Communities

The following objectives relate to the national goal of creating fire-adapted communities. 

Northeast Region

A suite of issues including expanding human populations, increased human-caused wildfire 

ignitions, and fuel accumulation (from wind, ice, insect, and disease events, as well as vegetation 

growth in the absence of fire) continue to create complex challenges for communities across the 

Northeast. Community adaptability is at the center of coordinated cross-jurisdictional wildland fire 

management that addresses quality of life as a part of the larger environmental landscape. A fireadapted community acknowledges the risks associated with its surroundings and, together with fire 

authorities including local fire departments, mitigates risks to safety and a sustainable quality of life. 

 Fire authorities, local governments, and community members negotiate/accept risk and the 

range of actions taken to mitigate risk. 

 Reduce wildland fire hazards. 

 Reduce unwanted human ignitions in and near communities. 

 Identify and address conflicts/barriers to fire adaptation in local land use planning, building 

ordinances, and building codes. 

 Develop agreements and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) that ease jurisdictional 

barriers for efficient and effective treatment and maintenance of fuel-treated areas (for 

example, neighborhood agreements). 

Southeast Region

The Southeast contains many communities that are adjacent to or located within wildland fire-prone 

landscapes. Communities can survive wildfire without loss of life or significant damage to 

infrastructure and recover and thrive economically. However, this requires human populations to 

directly engage in wildland fire planning to assess the level of wildfire risk to them and their 

communities, share responsibility, and participate in actively mitigating the threat. In order for this 

to be successful, communities must take responsibility for the consequence of their actions (or nonaction). At the same time, the wildland fire management community must catalyze this process 

through education, engagement, outreach, and support to communities in preparation and 

planning. In addition to engaging with existing communities, a vital part of the engagement process 

must be raising awareness of incorporating wildfire risk into the design process for future homes 

and communities. In the Southeast, there may be as much potential for change through engaging 

in the process of creating fire-adapted human communities as through effective fuels management. 
May 2012 32 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Support development of partnerships, and maintain engagement with communities by 

leveraging partnerships through community wildfire planning for improved preparedness. 

 Eliminate loss of life and minimize loss of structures. 

 Coordinate public policy and land use planning to achieve shared responsibility across 

jurisdictions. 

West Region

Preventing or minimizing the loss of life and property due to wildland fire in the West requires a 

combination of thorough pre-fire planning and action, followed by prudent and immediate response 

during an event. Post-fire activities can also speed community recovery efforts and help limit the 

long-term effects and costs of wildfire. Community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) or their 

equivalents should identify high risk areas and community-specific requirements. Collaboration, 

self-sufficiency, individuals’ and/or communities’ acceptance of the risks and consequences of their 

actions (or non-action), treating homes and property equally regardless of appraised value (social 

justice), and facilitating culture and behavior changes are important concepts. 

 Prevent unwanted human-caused wildland fire ignitions within or in close proximity to 

communities. 

 Reduce hazardous fuels within the wildland-urban interface and nearby areas containing 

community values to be protected. 

 Continue to develop, support, and maintain CWPPs as one of the primary tools to achieve 

the goals of the Cohesive Strategy. 

Fire-adapted community showing wildland-urban interface. 

Credit: West Region 
 33 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Build a culture of self-sufficiency to prepare for and protect life and property from wildland 

fire. 

 Improve effectiveness and self-sufficiency of emergency response within each community. 

 Improve post-fire recovery efforts that impact public health and safety, water sources, 

power transmission corridors, and other critical infrastructure. 

Specific Regional Objectives – Wildfire Response

The following objectives relate to improving wildfire response. 

Northeast Region

Throughout the Northeast, local fire departments, both career and volunteer, are key partners and 

are often the first and sole responders on wildfires. Support from Federal and state agencies is 

vital. Wildfires may be small in size, but numerous, and occur in bursts throughout the fire 

seasons. These factors, combined with the density of people and parcels of land under diverse 

ownership, create a complex wildfire response environment. A balanced wildfire response requires 

integrated pre-fire planning with effective, efficient, and coordinated emergency response. 

 Provide for firefighter and public safety. 

 Ensure that wildfire response reflects the broader wildland fire management strategy. 

 Maintain the capacity to suppress unwanted fires. 

 Improve organizational efficiencies and wildfire response effectiveness. 

 Coordinate planning, training, detection, and response activities for efficiencies. 

 Improve and maintain infrastructure (airports, roads, and bridges, etc.) that affect wildfire 

response. 

 Address capacity issues related to all-hazard response. 

 Provide access and reporting standards to all wildfire response agencies and 

organizations. 

Southeast Region

The objectives and actions developed by the Southeast RSC address a number of challenges and 

opportunities including a year-round fire season, widespread wildland-urban interface, smoke 

management, policy conflicts across multiple jurisdictions, and other issues. Focusing on firefighter 

safety, wildland fire management, and flexibility for locally appropriate response to unplanned 

ignitions are included in the two main objectives identified below. Of particular concern in the 

Southeast is the need for specialized equipment such as tractor plows that are not in widespread 

use outside of the region. A second major concern is ensuring appropriate and consistent training 

for partners and cooperators, particularly RFDs, whose membership changes frequently. Finally, 

promoting indirect attack, where appropriate, has proven an effective way to minimize risk to 

firefighters and maximize resource benefit. The wildland fire management community agrees that a 

need exists for agencies and organizations to retain the ability to select and apply techniques and 

tactics based on local conditions and needs. 
May 2012 34 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

 Increase firefighter safety by managing risks. 

 Increase and leverage resource capability and capacity. Streamline and support training 

across all areas to maximize effectiveness. 

West Region

Balanced wildfire response in the West requires integrated pre-fire planning with effective, efficient, 

and coordinated emergency response. Pre-fire planning helps tailor responses to wildfires across 

jurisdictions and landscape units that have different uses and management objectives. Improved 

prediction and understanding of weather, burning conditions, and various contingencies during 

wildfire events can improve firefighting effectiveness, thereby reducing losses and minimizing risks 

to firefighters and public health and safety. 

 Provide for safety of wildland fire responders and the public. 

 Guide response using risk management principles and values to be protected, as 

determined by early and frequent involvement of all partners, before, during, and after a 

wildland fire event. 

 Improve effectiveness and efficiency of the wildland fire management organization. 

 Improve administration and maximize the coordination and effectiveness of wildland fire 

management resources. 

 Develop community-based strategies to deal with post-fire hazards on natural and cultural 

resources, responders, communities, and planned activities. 

 Collect and use accurate and consistent fire information from all wildland fire protection 

jurisdictions to improve understanding of the wildland fire and response workload and 

provide feedback to decision-support systems. 

Idaho wildland fire management collaboration. Credit: BLM Public Domain 
 35 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Actions and Activities

The intent of the following section is to illustrate the concept of an objectives hierarchy, where the RSCs 

developed objectives tied to the national goals and potential actions and activities, which support the 

objectives. In some cases, the RSCs discussed in detail the sub-objective and action level to the hierarchy 

of goals, objectives and actions. More than 300 actions are described in the three regional assessments; 

however, only a limited snapshot of potential actions is synthesized within this report, with none taking 

precedence over other actions found within the regional assessments. 

As the three goals of the Cohesive Strategy are interdependent, investment in actions tied to one goal can 

and should lead to success in all three national goals. The assessment process and the resulting 

collaboration and identification of regional actions and activities will continue as we move into Phase III 

and beyond. The RSCs noted in their assessments that some actions can be embarked on immediately at 

little to no cost, such as enhancing opportunities for homeowners to proactively reduce hazards around 

their homes and property, increasing collaboration across agencies, and thinking beyond the wildlandurban interface. 

The following are example actions as excerpted from the regional assessments, and their potential to 

reduce risk will be evaluated in Phase III as part of the refinement of regional alternatives (i.e., portfolios of 

actions and activities). 

 Goal: Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes 

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

management objectives. 

Northeast Regional Objective: Restore and maintain structure, composition, and function of firedependent communities (e.g., jack pine systems, oak woodlands, prairie and grasslands, barrens, 

and savannas). 

Potential Action: Use prescribed fire strategically in fire-dependent ecosystems.

Example Activity: Support existing prescribed fire councils and the development of 

prescribed fire councils in states that don't have them. 

Southeast Regional Objective: Develop and sustain required capability and capacity to plan and 

carry out landscape treatments, including prescribed fire. 

Potential Action: Sustain and further develop a network of trained practitioners capable of 

utilizing applied fire science (smoke management, appropriate burn season, technology, 

etc.) to plan and implement a comprehensive prescribed fire program. 

Example Activity: Prescribed burning is critically important in the South for 

landscape restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, and a myriad of other reasons. 

Private landowners or their contractors do most of the burning in the South. 

Several states in the South have Prescribed Burner Certification programs which 

provide some protection from liability if the certified burner is trained and meets 

certain other requirements, such as having a written prescribed burn plan, etc. 

The state forestry agencies are usually responsible for managing the Prescribed 

Burner Certification programs and providing the training required by the program. 
May 2012 36 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Southeast Regional Objective: Build and maintain resiliency in Southeastern landscapes through 

strategic use of prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, grazing, etc., and manage wildfire where 

and when appropriate, based on ownership and landscape context. 

Potential Action: Promote and use fire to emulate natural disturbance patterns to maintain 

and improve ecological systems, and balance social, cultural, and economic needs, 

especially over large contiguous landscapes. 

Potential Action: Use prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads where feasible, prioritizing 

burning to maintain fuel loading in previously treated areas. 

Potential Action: Use education and incentive programs to encourage new and 

nontraditional private landowners to manage their lands to contribute to resiliency while 

providing forest products and expanding ecosystem markets (working forests). 

Example Activity: Support the One Message, Many Voices campaign and 

development of other unified prescribed fire education programs. Prescribed 

burning education in the South is provided through several venues including the 

One Message Many Voices (OMMV) program. The idea of OMMV is that the 

public will receive the same message on prescribed burning from many 

communicators. OMMV is a joint program of the Southern Group of State 

Foresters, Tall Timbers Research Station, and prescribed fire councils. 

Advertisements encourage viewers to participate in outdoor recreational activities 

and are directed to www.visitmyforest.org for local outdoor recreational 

opportunities. In the process of viewing the recreational opportunities, the viewer 

is exposed to prescribed burning messages and to the Web site 

http://www.goodfires.org. 

West Regional Objective: Develop and maintain professional and industrial capacity to implement 

cost-effective and sustainable landscape treatments and support local economies. 

Potential Action: Support traditional (e.g., timber, grazing, fishing, hunting, tourism, 

recreation, and energy and minerals development) uses and industries that contribute to 

land management objectives and support local economies.

Potential Action: Support development of new technologies and local infrastructure for 

biomass removal and utilization through multiple means including legislation such as the 

Farm/Energy Bill incentives that address emerging industry needs. 

 Goal: Creating Fire-adapted Communities 

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

Northeast Regional Objective: Reduce wildfire hazards on public lands that border communities to 

create fuel transition zones. 

Potential Action: Coordinate fuels reduction and maintenance of desired conditions across 

jurisdictions. 
 37 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Example Activity: Throughout the Northeast, there exists a mosaic of Federal, 

state, and local public lands that border wildland-urban interface communities. 

Working together, the land management agencies can utilize the most appropriate 

funding authorities to complete priority projects on the landscape. 

Southeast Regional Objective: Coordinate public policy and shared responsibility across 

jurisdictions. 

Potential Action: Develop new, and enhance existing, agreements to allow fuels mitigation 

work to be conducted in the wildland-urban interface across jurisdictions. 

Example Activity: Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners (GOAL) - The 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is adjacent to high-value private timberlands 

(working forest), state forest, national forest, and towns and communities in 

southeastern Georgia and northwestern Florida. Heavy fuel, difficult terrain, and 

wildland-urban interface make fire response in this area difficult, complex, and 

dangerous. The GOAL was formed to allow concerned private landowners, 

homeowners, and state and Federal agencies to better communicate and 

coordinate pre-suppression and suppression activities. Some of GOAL’s 

accomplishments include construction and maintenance of the swamp edge break,

which is a fire break constructed around the Refuge, fuel mitigation work adjacent 

to the swamp edge break, and coordinated response to wildfire. During the Honey 

Prairie Fire, which started in April 2011, and continues to burn as a ground fire, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Georgia Forest Commission, 

and Florida Forest Service established a unified command. In this area, private 

landowners (GOAL members) have resources that can be used in wildland fire 

suppression and actively engage in wildland fire response in coordination with 

state and Federal partners. 

West Regional Objective: Reduce hazardous fuels within the wildland-urban interface and nearby 

areas containing community values to be protected.

Potential Action: Encourage proactive vegetation management on public and private 

forests, woodlots, rangeland, fields, wildland-urban interface home sites, and around 

infrastructure. 

Example Activity: Develop a long-term coordinated program of planned and 

scheduled on-the-ground projects that would achieve fuels reduction and land 

management objectives, provide year-round employment, and sustain a reliable 

flow of raw and value-added wood products. 

 Goal: Responding to Wildfires 

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

management decisions. 

Northeast Regional Objective: Maintain a shared capacity to suppress unwanted fires. 

Potential Action: Support local fire departments as integral to the suppression of wildfires 

across the Northeast. 
May 2012 38 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Example Activity: Increase and improve wildland fire suppression training 

adequate to respond to local conditions. 

Southeast Regional Objective: Increase and leverage resource capability and capacity. Streamline 

and support training across all areas to maximize effectiveness. 

Potential Action: Utilize relationships to increase interagency cooperation during wildland 

fire suppression. Develop and encourage the implementation of statewide mutual aid 

agreements and cross-jurisdiction MOUs, including Cooperative Fire Agreement billing. 

Support development of interagency all-hazard Type 3 incident management teams 

(IMTs). 

Example Activity: The Department of Homeland Security presented an award to 

the unified command partners of the Bastrop County, Texas, Fire Complex on 

November 14, 2011, in Washington, D.C. This award recognized the outstanding 

coordination and cooperation in responding to the Bastrop County Complex, which 

burned over 34,000 acres and more than 1,500 homes. Partners involved in the 

unified command include: the city of Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas Division of 

Emergency Management, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Forest 

Service, the Atlanta-based National Incident Management Organization, and the 

Southern Area type 1 IMT (Red Team). 

Example Activity: Texas developed the Texas Intrastate Fire Mutual Aid System 

(TIFMAS) and a network of interagency Type 3 all-hazard IMTs. The TIFMAS is 

made up of structural fire departments from across Texas that can respond to 

structural or wildland fire incidents when needed. Funding for the responding fire 

departments is provided through the Texas Division of Emergency Management. 

The Texas Forest Service was very involved in developing interagency Type 3 

IMTs in Texas. Type 3 IMTs are composed primarily of city and county personnel. 

When Type 3 IMTs are deployed, they are assigned a Texas Forest Service 

liaison to assist with coordination. The Texas Forest Service uses these 

organizations in concert. When the Texas Forest Service requests TIFMAS 

resources on a wildfire, they also request a Type 3 IMT to provide coordination 

and assistance for TIFMAS responders. The TIFMAS provided 700 pieces of 

firefighting equipment and over 3,000 firefighters to support wildfire response in 

Texas in 2011. 

West Regional Objective: Improve effectiveness and efficiency of the wildland fire management 

organization. 

Potential Action: Seek opportunities to make strategic investments that will improve 

organizational effectiveness. 

Example Activity: All jurisdictions (Federal, state, local, and tribal) evaluate 

protection responsibilities to ensure that the organizations are prepared to provide 

wildfire protection cost-effectively, while retaining jurisdictional authorities (e.g., 

block protection areas, offset protection agreements, protection contracts). 
 39 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Barriers and Proposed Solutions 

Through regional objectives and actions tied to the three national goals, the RSCs proposed constructive 

resolutions to ongoing policy conflicts and suggested ways to take advantage of the opportunities they 

present. Some viable opportunities to address policy barriers and gaps that prevent full coordination and 

collaboration and/or the most flexible use of existing authorities to plan and implement landscape-scale 

treatments have been examined in the regional assessment reports. 

Regions proposed the following actions to address barriers to success in their regions. 

Barrier: Landscape scale restoration is often difficult to achieve due to complex process 

requirements of Federal laws, rules, and policies. New interpretation and engagement with key 

partners can take advantage of flexibility that currently exists, but may not be exercised for fear of 

litigation. 

Potential action: Encourage Federal agencies to use existing authorities to expedite the 

planning/collaboration process used to treat large landscapes. 

Potential action: Work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) to maximize flexibility for implementing actions following 

uncharacteristic wildland fire events. 

Barrier: Responding to wildland fire events is a complex, interagency task. Many resources that 

would otherwise be available for mobilization are unavailable because of cumbersome qualification 

standards and procedures. 

Potential action: Build on existing success (e.g., Incident Qualification and Certification 

System (IQCS), Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), and Service First) to develop a 

national qualifications system to track Federal, tribal, local, state, and private community 

responders. 

Barrier: Many states have laws that require all wildfires to be suppressed. Alternative wildfire 

management strategies such as managing lightning caused fires are not universally available to all 

wildland fire management agencies, especially state agencies, which have responsibility for 

managing wildfires on private lands. 

Potential actions: Manage wildfire strategically to restore and maintain landscape resilience 

by addressing state specific regulations on [managing] lightning ignitions. Further 

exploration may identify areas where compatible management objectives exist. 

Implementation strategies should be developed for when and where natural ignitions could 

be managed for landscape resilience and resource benefits. 

Barrier: In many fire-prone landscapes, there is a need to include a broader range of groups who 

embrace, adopt, and implement fire-adapted community principles at local planning and zoning 

scales for, at a minimum, new construction and development. 

Potential actions: Identify and address conflicts or barriers to fire adaptation in local land 

use planning, building ordinances, and building codes. Work with local planners to include 

fire-safe features in new development (e.g., building codes, landscaping, and evacuation 

routes) and specific restrictions when building in dangerous topography or conditions. 

Engage insurers to educate homeowners and developers about using fire-resistant building 
May 2012 40 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

materials, designing appropriate access roads to homes and developments, and using 

Firewise principles. 

Barrier: A number of policy barriers and process complexities affect the ability to effectively and 

efficiently share resources, not only for wildfire, but for fuels and prescribed fire work. As skill gaps 

grow, reliance on a mobile skilled workforce is one option, while local expertise is developed. One 

example is the new national template for cooperative fire agreements, which is designed so 

cooperators are responsible to bill the end user. A state will directly bill another state for fire 

personnel versus the billing managed at the Federal level. Processes for updating and revising 

agreements are slow and cumbersome. Qualification standards pose barriers to sharing resources 

when the USDA Forest Service follows one set of rules, while others may follow the Wildland Fire 

Qualification System Guide, PMS 310-1. 

Potential Actions: Improve organizational efficiencies and wildfire response effectiveness. 

Address preparedness strategically for greater efficiency and cost effectiveness. Develop 

a flexible and mobile response capacity, given changing fire seasons and fuel events. 

Revegetation after a wildfire. Credit: Southeast Region 
 41 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS AND AREAS TO

EXPLORE FOR REDUCING RISK

Phase II of the Cohesive Strategy had two main components: (1) to bring together stakeholders and 

communities to look for synergies and ways to work together to improve land management, reduce wildfire 

risk, and improve suppression capability; and (2) to gather information describing conditions in the three 

regions pertaining to the threat of wildfire, values at risk, trends, and uncertainties. The next step is to 

define initial alternatives. Initial alternatives are built on an understanding of the national goals and regional 

needs and constraints. The RSCs began exploring alternatives through the development of management 

scenarios (as described in the Southeast and the West) and areas to explore for reducing risk (as 

described in the Northeast). The ideas expressed by the RSCs set the stage for the analysis to take place 

in Phase III, but they are not alternatives for implementation. 

According to the Phase I report, “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 chance of catastrophic losses. Real world constraints on funding, available 

resources, and administrative flexibility further require consideration of economic efficiency and 

practicality.” 

Together, stakeholders and the NSAT defined management constraints for reducing risk in each region. 

Alternatives presented in the three regional assessments are not plans or decisions; they are articulations 

of options and possible areas of program emphasis to reduce the risk of wildland fire. Analytical methods 

will be used to test initial alternatives developed by the RSCs. The initial alternatives are preliminary and 

will be refined in Phase III. 

Using the CRAFT process, the NSAT will explore the likely outcomes of the scenarios presented and 

additional scenarios, yet to be developed. They will use wildfire risk maps and fire behavior models to 

determine the relative effectiveness of different approaches across the landscape. Management options to 

be considered will be evaluated not only for potential cost effectiveness, but also from a perspective of risk, 

social acceptability, and consistency with prevailing policies. After processing the scenarios in light of the 

best scientific data and risk assessment models available, NSAT will come back to the RSCs with options 

and recommendations. 

It is difficult to judge the effectiveness of one alternative action or activity against another. Since 

effectiveness is the ability to get a desired change in real world conditions, it will vary according to the 

conditions. There is no one correct strategy for reducing risk and protecting communities and firefighters. 

While reducing fuels through prescribed burning or mechanical treatment might be most effective in some 

areas of the country, in others it may be more effective to focus on educating landowners, preventing 

ignitions, and preparing communities for wildfire. And, it makes sense to use local information and science 

to help locate the most effective programs for different areas of the country. 

The CRAFT process guided the RSCs to list possible broad objectives, actions, and activities. Phase III will 

continue the CRAFT process as RSCs identify the combination of actions and activities that best reflects 

the continuation of current policies and practices, and other reasonable combinations of actions and 

activities that collectively could contribute to long and short term goals. 
May 2012 42 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

The Northeast’s Areas to Explore for Reducing Risk

To develop alternative management scenarios, the Northeast RSC spent much time identifying objectives 

and activities that would significantly increase, decrease, or change their ability to meet the national goals. 

They developed a list of activities for the NSAT to explore and determine how much change would occur if 

the activity is increased, decreased, or eliminated. The activities listed are not proposed alternatives—they 

are simply areas to explore to determine if efficiencies can be gained by reallocating resources. The 

Northeast RSC indicated that they need more data to develop alternative management scenarios. The 

Northeast articulates four investment options: 

 Preventing human-caused ignitions. 

 Fuels treatments. 

 Building capacity in wildfire response. 

 Protecting values at risk. 

Within those categories, specific actions are listed. For example, invest in preventing human-caused 

ignitions sets out three levels of funding for prevention activities and the option of investing in local 

ordinances that reduce unwanted ignitions from debris burning and other sources. 

Under invest in fuels treatments, three levels of funding for fuels treatments will be explored, and the option 

of treating only around communities in fire-risk landscapes, or in landscapes affected by wind, storm, pest, 

drought, or other events. 

For invest in building capacity for wildfire response, options range from increased staffing, training, and 

detection, to investing in water scooping aircraft, to eliminating barriers to cost sharing and cross billing, or 

appointing a fire warden in each town. 

And, some options for invest in protecting values at risk include the following: treating fire-dependent 

ecosystems with prescribed fire, investing in fire-proofing homes, and modifying codes for new 

development and structure construction. 

It is anticipated that the analyses will show that a mix of investments in some, if not all, of these areas will 

be recommended. These alternatives are set out so that the NSAT can test each action separately and 

then inform the RSC as to which actions are most likely to be effective, and where they are likely to be 

effective. 

The Southeast’s Management Scenarios 

The Southeast sees the development of alternatives as a way to weigh various national and regional values 

and goals to strategically use available resources for the greatest effect. They set out four potential 

management scenarios: 

 Present management situation. 

 Increased personal responsibility through outreach and education. 

 Increased firefighter safety and wildfire response through enhanced collaboration, training, and 

capacity. 

 Increased proactive fuels mitigation through all management techniques including prescribed 

burning. 
 43 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

These management scenarios are described along with anticipated consequences. The intent is to see 

what an increase in certain areas of management emphasis might accomplish. Running these changes in 

program emphasis through the scientific analysis will allow managers to compare trade-offs to make better 

management decisions. 

The West’s Management Scenarios 

The West also developed management scenarios to explore different levels of emphasis on a suite of 

actions for implementation, focusing on the national goals. Each scenario emphasizes a subset of the 

regional objectives and actions. While each scenario emphasizes actions to focus on one of the goals, 

efforts toward the other goals are assumed to continue. 

 Scenario One – Emphasize landscape resiliency. This scenario places greater emphasis on 

restoring the landscape with fuels treatments through prescribed fire, wildland fire, and mechanical 

treatments, including active forest management with harvest of commercial products in those 

landscapes where appropriate and using suppression where appropriate, to enhance landscape 

resiliency. 

 Scenario Two – Emphasize fuels treatments to create fire-adapted communities. This scenario 

places greater emphasis on fuels treatments, including active forest management, within the 

wildland-urban interface and areas identified in CWPPs and similar plans. 

 Scenario Three – Emphasize the creation of fire-adapted communities through collaboration and 

self-sufficiency. This scenario places greater emphasis on assisting private citizens, landowners, 

and land managers to increase collaborative efforts and take action to protect their values at risk. 

 Scenario Four – Emphasize effectiveness in wildfire response. This scenario places greater 

emphasis on increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of firefighting organizations across all 

jurisdictions. 

The West assumes that emphasis on specific objectives and actions within a scenario will result in 

synergies from the alignment of energy by those involved in implementation of the emphasized objectives. 

This synergy would lead to implementation levels that exceed the current level. 

Team analyzing wildland fire management options. Credit: West Region 
May 2012 44 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND OUTREACH

The RSCs are collaborative teams representing wildland fire agencies, tribes, industry, and nongovernmental organizations. The RSCs undertook extensive outreach to contact stakeholders for input 

relating to challenges, values, trends, and objectives. However, the compressed timeframe prevented them 

from reaching everyone who wished to be involved. The RSCs recognize that a strong outreach strategy is 

key to building a successful national strategy for wildland fire management, and they will continue outreach 

efforts in Phase III. 

Phase II of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy continued the development of the 

existing national strategy by engaging people affected by, and essential to, implementation at a regional 

scale. The goals of Phase II were twofold: (1) to solicit input and build collaborative relationships between 

wildland fire management organizations and stakeholders affected by the strategy, and (2) to better 

represent the unique resources and values associated with distinct geographic regions of the United States. 

Collaboration and communication will continue beyond Phase II as integral components of the Cohesive 

Strategy. 

The Cohesive Strategy effort is the first time all wildland fire organizations, land managers, and 

policymaking officials representing all levels of governmental and non-governmental organizations, have 

come together to create a shared national strategy. It is also the first time individual regions of the country 

have had the opportunity to identify regional goals, objectives, and challenges to be incorporated in the 

national strategy. In preparing their assessments and strategies, the Northeast, Southeast, and West RSCs 

reached out to the following groups to gather input and concerns: 

 Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and organizations; 

 Local natural resource and fire service agencies; 

 Industry groups; 

 Private landowners; and 

 Community members. 

Each RSC held meetings to familiarize members with the Cohesive Strategy and to develop the process for 

obtaining input from stakeholder groups. Each RSC identified individuals representing diverse skills, 

experience, backgrounds, and organizations to create a working group to gather input, build relationships, 

and support the work of the RSC during the effort. (See Appendix D for RSC and working group members.) 

The RSCs contacted over 4,500 stakeholders by telephone and email, through posts to outreach Web sites, 

and in person at meetings. Stakeholders provided input through an online form, written comments, and/or 

in focus groups and forums. Participation and response varied among the regions and stakeholder groups. 

Engagement with diverse stakeholders during outreach efforts provided valuable information to help 

identify common societal and environmental values and concerns, in addition to trends and uncertainties 

for each region. The three regional assessment reports provide expanded discussions of the collaboration 

and outreach efforts and the resulting values, trends, and uncertainties identified during Phase II. 
 45 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND ANALYSIS TEAM 

The NSAT was created to do the following: (1) provide analytical support to the RSCs and CSSC, and (2) 

support the development and implementation of the Cohesive Strategy through the application of proven 

scientific processes and analysis. To achieve this goal, the NSAT is charged with three primary tasks 

during Phase II and Phase III: 

(1) Assemble credible scientific information, data, and pre-existing models that can be used by all 

teams working on the Cohesive Strategy. 

(2) Develop a conceptual framework that describes the relative effectiveness of proposed actions and 

activities on managing risks associated with wildland fire. 

(3) Construct an analytical system using the products developed in tasks 1 and 2 to quantitatively 

analyze regional and national alternatives identified by the RSCs and CSSC. 

Tasks 1 and 2 were addressed within Phase II and will continue. Task 3 is exclusively a Phase III effort. 

NSAT Efforts during Phase II 

A wide range of individual scientists and analysts was invited to participate in the NSAT. These individuals 

represent Federal, state, and tribal agencies; universities; and various non-governmental organizations, as 

well as a variety of topic areas spanning the complex issue of wildland fire management. Sub-teams active 

during Phase II include the following: 

 Fuels management, wildfire extent and intensity; 

 Wildfire ignitions and preventions; 

 Smoke management impacts; 

 Landscape resilience; 

 Firefighter safety; 

 Fire-adapted human communities; 

 Wildfire response and suppression effectiveness; and 

 Public acceptance and policy effectiveness. 

Due to the complexity of wildland fire management, many of the identified topics necessarily overlap or 

intersect. This is especially true for issues such as landscape resilience, fire-adapted human communities, 

and public acceptance and policy effectiveness. As the conceptual models developed during Phase II are 

translated into more quantitative models for use in Phase III, the various components and relationships 

among them will become more explicit. Additional detail regarding sub-team reports, expectations for 

Phase III, and conclusions are provided in the full NSAT report. 

The NSAT sub-team efforts built upon and expanded each of these major processes. For example, the 

wildfire ignitions sub-team considered a broad range of factors that affect where, when, and how wildfires 

start, and how various combinations of engineering, enforcement, and education can influence human 

caused ignitions. Similarly, the fuels management sub-team examined how various combinations of 
May 2012 46 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

prescribed fire and other fuel treatments affect vegetation structure and composition, which in turn influence 

(and are influenced by) wildfire extent and intensity. Such interactions play out differently across diverse 

ecological biomes and at various spatial and temporal scales. 

In many ways, the products from the sub-team efforts reflect the state of knowledge about various aspects of 

wildland fire and the availability of existing models and data. This process has highlighted the importance of 

data standards and data accessibility across Federal, state, tribal, local, and non-governmental 

organizations. 

Fine-scale processes tend to be better understood than broad-scale processes or strategic issues. For 

example, there is extensive literature on fire behavior and combustible properties of fuels; less is understood 

about the large scale effectiveness of strategic fuel treatments. 

Considerably more research has focused on the biophysical aspects of wildland fire than has been directed 

at equally important socio-political issues. Thus, we can assuredly state that fire-wise landscaping and 

construction materials will help reduce the incidence of homes lost to wildfire; we are less confident as to 

how to ensure that such practices are implemented. Smoke is an archetypal issue—technically well 

understood, but socio-politically complex and difficult. 

Each sub-team produced one or more conceptual models of the processes operating within their area of 

interest. Collectively, these conceptual models create a rich tapestry that illustrates the extensiveness, 

complexity, and interconnectedness of wildland fire. Along with the information summarized on existing 

analytical models and data sources, the conceptual models provide a strong foundation for building more 

rigorous models in Phase III that can be used to compare and contrast alternative strategies for reducing 

risk. It is recognized that the model development process and model analysis in Phase III must be 

conducted in a collaborative and fully transparent manner to meet a level of trust and acceptance by the 

agencies and the public. 

NSAT Efforts during Phase III 

The NSAT will develop analytical models and interact with the RSCs and work groups to explore alternative 

management strategies (alternatives) for each region, based on application and utility of the models. To 

complete these analyses, the WFEC, CSSC, and RSCs will engage with the NSAT to do the following: 

1. Translate the conceptual models developed in Phase II into quantitative and qualitative 

models, as appropriate. Create a nationally consistent set of analytical models that can operate at 

regional scales using regionally specific data, relationships, and assumptions. Retain the 

individuality of the regions, recognizing regional differences, while employing a consistent analysis 

across the Nation. 

2. Compile and integrate appropriate data to quantify and validate the relationships presented 

in the models, using both Federal and state data sources. Specific data, relationships, and 

information needed to run the analytical models will be brought together for initial tests. 

3. Identify performance measures that can be used across all regions and within a given region. 

4. Identify geographic variations in the models to reflect appropriate differences across the 

regions. Variations in wildland fire and wildland fire management are apparent across the major 

regions. It is important that analytical models reflect appropriate variations. 

5. Interact with the RSCs to validate that the modeled relationships are reasonable. Validation of 

the models and the data will be conducted with the RSCs and the working groups. 
 47 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

6. Explore specific alternatives developed by the RSCs through regional analysis. Alternatives 

are strategic management options that reflect the decision space available for broad national and 

regional choices related to wildland fire management and policies. Initial regional alternatives, 

coupled with additional alternatives developed nationally, will be analyzed to explore the potential 

outcomes and associated trade-offs of different choices, using the models to predict outcomes. 

7. Interact with the RSCs to revalidate analysis models and iteratively refine regional 

alternatives to be included in the comparative risk analyses—national trade-off analysis.

Study analysis models via beta testing before refining alternatives. Refine alternatives to include in 

the comparative risk analyses—national trade-off analysis. Illustrate the trade-offs—benefits and 

consequences with regard to modeled performance outcomes—associated with each alternative to 

inform policy managers and decisionmakers. 

8. Conduct and document the comparative risk analyses—national trade-off analysis. 

Coordinate efforts with other committees to report on results of the national trade-off analysis. 

Utilize models to project how risk varies under each alternative. The risk trade-off analysis will allow 

for a comparison of the performance outcomes of each alternative, based on a modeling projection. 

The trade-offs—benefits and consequences—of each alternative are intended to be useful for 

further deliberations among stakeholders, partners, agencies, and policymakers, as decision 

processes move forward. A report will document the processes, analyses, and results of the 

regional and national science-based risk analyses. 

The NSAT will communicate regular progress reports to the WFEC through the CSSC. 

Monitoring a prescribed burn in Wisconsin. Credit: Northeast Region 
May 2012 48 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

NEXT STEPS FOR COHESIVE STRATEGY

It is important to understand that the completion of each phase of the Cohesive Strategy is a separate 

milestone; however, the Cohesive Strategy is a national, iterative process that will continue into the future. 

This section includes many of the next steps planned for the Cohesive Strategy effort, each of which 

positions our Nation one step closer to achieving the vision of safely and effectively extinguish fire when 

needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a Nation, to live with wildland fire. 

Much was accomplished in Phase II, all of which will be built upon as the effort moves forward. 

The existing governance structure—WFLC, WFEC, CSSC, NSAT, and RSCs—will continue to focus on 

supporting the Cohesive Strategy. In addition to those currently involved, outreach to and engagement with 

additional stakeholders, managers, scientists, and analysts is a critical component of each next step. It is 

the responsibility of each member of each committee and team to conduct outreach and garner 

engagement with the many voices nationwide. Collaboration and communication among existing and new 

contacts will continue to be key to the success of this effort. 

America’s wildland fire problems are complex and difficult to solve independently. To improve our collective 

understanding, we will gain more knowledge and context through the risk assessment and analysis 

process. Risk assessment and analysis provides scalable information for reducing risk at the local, 

regional, and national levels. The intent of the risk assessment and analysis is not to make a final decision 

as to which alternative management options will be selected. Rather, the intent is to derive information 

useful for further deliberations among stakeholders, partners, agencies, and policymakers at multiple 

scales as decision processes move forward within and beyond Phase III. Refer to the Phase II Report of 

the National Science and Analysis Team: Scientific Basis for Modeling Wildland Fire Management for 

additional detail on the risk assessment and analysis process. 

The work that began in Phases I and II will continue in Phase III. This next phase of the Cohesive Strategy 

involves the following: 

(1) Identify specific regional alternatives, 

(2) Continue and expand outreach within and among the regions utilizing the communications 

framework, 

(3) Continue to identify immediate opportunities, 

(4) Complete Regional and National Science-based Risk Analysis Reports, and 

(5) Complete regional action plans and a national action plan. 

Responsibilities and Timeline

The WFEC and CSSC are responsible for providing guidance and oversight to the RSCs and NSAT 

throughout Phase III. The WFLC, WFEC, and CSSC will support completion of each objective, provide 

necessary guidance to complete analyses, and ultimately provide a report recommendation to the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, as a result of Phase III, by early 2013. A Regional Action Plan for 

each of the three regions will be completed in 2013, as well as a National Action Plan. 
 49 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH

Communication throughout the Cohesive Strategy supports stakeholder efforts to rapidly disseminate 

information about progress, and systematically acquire and use feedback and input to improve the potential 

for highly effective collaboration. 

The WFEC created the Cohesive Strategy Communication Work Group on September 2, 2011. The WFLC 

and the WFEC recognized the importance of communication during the Cohesive Strategy process and 

committed resources and support to ensure that all interested stakeholders are able to access timely 

information, engage in the process, and affect the final outcome.

Overarching communication outcomes were agreed upon: information dissemination, organizational 

communication and collaboration, and implementation. This is to ensure that stakeholders, interested 

parties, and the public are informed of progress in the development of the Cohesive Strategy; that 

communication processes are used to enhance and sustain collaboration among stakeholders toward 

development and implementation of the Cohesive Strategy; and that management and oversight options 

are available to move forward on the Cohesive Strategy in a collaborative manner. 

At the November 2011 WFLC meeting, WFLC members concurred with the November 2011 version of the 

Communications Framework presented (refer to Appendix G). Recognizing the need for a Communications 

Steering Group, WFLC directed the WFEC to develop an implementation scenario for communication 

efforts. The Communications Steering Group will be defined, developed, and implemented in the first half of 

the 2012 calendar year. Since communications is a dynamic process, the strategy and tactics will evolve 

and be evaluated for their effectiveness on a routine basis. 

Southwest riparian forest. Credit: Dana Coelho 
May 2012 50 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

CONCLUSION

The completion of Phase II is a significant milestone in the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy effort. The synthesis of regional assessments and strategies meets the Phase II goals WFLC laid 

out and supplies an initial set of alternatives to add to and analyze during the national trade-off analysis in 

Phase III. A multitude of stakeholders within each region came together to discuss their goals for landscape 

management within the context of the inevitability of wildland fire. They found many commonalities among 

their concerns and a starting place to move forward to restore landscapes, protect communities from 

wildfire, and improve suppression response. The three goals of the Cohesive Strategy are not mutually 

exclusive, and the stakeholders realized that working toward one goal would enhance opportunities to work 

toward the other goals. 

Phase II has resulted in the development of robust regional assessments and strategies that are supported 

by numerous stakeholders and, in many cases, ready for action. Focusing on engaging regional and local 

stakeholders in the development of objectives and actions gives the Cohesive Strategy a measure of local 

support not present in previous efforts to improve wildland fire management. Ownership of, and investment 

in, regional strategies by those who developed them is a remarkable and early sign of success. Successful 

implementation of the Cohesive Strategy requires a collaborative process among multiple levels of 

government and a range of interests, resulting in healthier landscapes, enhanced community protection, 

and diminished risk and consequences of severe wildland fire. This collaborative process is ongoing and 

will continue into Phase III and beyond. 

Phase II has shown the value of a decisionmaking structure that operates from the top-down and from the 

bottom-up. All voices must be at the table to truly take an all-lands and landscape scale approach to land 

and wildland fire management. The multi-stakeholder representation on the committees, from the WFLC to 

the WFEC, CSSC, the RSCs, and the NSAT has resulted in shared support for the Cohesive Strategy. 

This early success positions all stakeholders to move forward into Phase III and develop a full range of 

alternatives to be analyzed for their ability to achieve a shared vision for the future, as articulated in the 

FLAME Act. Phase III will incorporate scientific modeling of landscapes and wildfire behavior to ascertain 

the most strategic methods for reducing wildfire impacts to forests and communities. 

Wildfire will always remain a natural force that brings benefits as well as unwanted destruction to 

landscapes, beyond the control of humans. We can do our best to safeguard those things we value—life, 

property, and healthy functioning ecosystems—by applying our knowledge in ways that can effectively 

reduce the unwanted impacts of wildfire. The community of land management professionals, the firefighting 

community, and residents of wildland-urban interface communities are working together to make this vision 

a reality. Developing the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is an important step in the 

process of learning to live with fire by focusing on collaborative efforts to minimize wildfire’s unwanted 

impacts. 

This Cohesive Strategy is not a report for the shelf; rather, it is one piece of a living, ongoing process that 

requires continued engagement. The Cohesive Strategy builds on existing collaborative efforts in the 

wildland fire management community with the expected outcome of building a holistic, national wildland fire 

management framework—one that links healthy and resilient landscapes to fire-adapted communities and 

wildfire response, rather than considering them separately. We are committed to implementing, effectively 

communicating, and regularly revisiting the Cohesive Strategy in the context of adaptive management; we 

believe all of these are critical elements for continued success. 
 51 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY 

The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) maintains an extensive glossary of fire management 

terminology and acronyms (found at www.nwcg.gov/pms//pubs/glossary/index.htm). Some terms used in 

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

Biomass Any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring 

basis. Under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

(Title IX, Sec. 9001), biomass includes agricultural crops, trees 

grown for energy production, wood waste and wood residues, 

plants (including aquatic plants and grasses), residues, fibers, 

animals wastes and other waste materials, and fats, oils, and 

greases (including recycled fats, oils, and greases), but not 

recycled paper or unsegregated solid waste. (From Farm Bill 

Glossary on the National Agricultural Law Center Web site 

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/#.) 

Fire-adapted community Human communities consisting of informed and prepared citizens 

collaboratively planning and taking action to safely coexist 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 Collectively refers to all those who are engaged in any aspect of 

wildland fire-related activities. 

Fire exclusion Land management activity of keeping vegetation or ecosystems 

from burning in a wildland fire. 

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

managing wildland fires and their effects on the environment 

[according to the Phase I report glossary]. 

Fire science community 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. 
May 2012 52 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Fragmentation Physical process whereby large, uniform areas are progressively 

divided into smaller fragments that are physically or ecologically 

dissimilar. Fragmentation can occur through natural disturbances 

such as wildfire, or more commonly, through land use conversion 

by humans (e.g., urbanization). 

Landscape resilience The ability of a landscape to absorb the effects of fire by regaining 

or maintaining its characteristic structural, compositional and 

functional attributes. The amount of resilience a landscape 

possesses is proportional to the magnitude of fire effects required 

to fundamentally change the system. 

Parcellation Process of subdividing a large, intact area under single ownership 

into smaller parcels with multiple owners. The term can also apply 

to an administrative process of dividing a landscape into multiple 

management units with different management objectives. 

Parcellation is often a precursor of fragmentation because of 

differences in management priorities among property owners. 

Silviculture “The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, 

composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet 

the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a 

sustainable basis” - definition from John A. Helms, ed., 1998. The 

Dictionary of Forestry. The Society of American Foresters, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

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. 

Viewshed An area of land, water, or other environmental element that is 

visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point. 
 53 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS

AD Administratively Determined 

BAER Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation 

BAR Burned Area Rehabilitation

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAR Community at Risk

CE Categorical Exclusion 

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality 

CRAFT Comparative Risk Assessment Framework and Tools

CS Cohesive Strategy 

CSKT Consolidated Salish and Kootenai Tribes 

CSOC Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee

CSSC Cohesive Strategy Subcommittee 

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan

CWSF Council of Western State Foresters 

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOI Department of the Interior

EACG Eastern Area Coordinating Group

EAJA Equal Access to Justice Act

EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact

EMDS Ecosystem Management Decision Support system 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEPP Federal Excess Property Program

FFT2 Firefighter 2

FLAME Act Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act 

FLN Fire Learning Network

4FRI Four Forest Restoration Initiative (in Arizona)

FPA Fire Program Analysis

FPU Fire Planning Unit

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GACC Geographic Area Coordinating Center 
May 2012 54 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

GAO General Accounting Office 

GOAL Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners 

HB House Bill 

HFI Healthy Forests Initiative 

HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act

HVR Highly Valued Resource

IAFC International Association of Fire Chiefs 

ICS Incident Command System 

ID Idaho

IMT Incident Management Team 

IQCS Incident Qualification and Certification System 

ITC Intertribal Timber Council

JFSP Joint Fire Science Project

LMPs Land Management Plans

LRMPs Land and Resource Management Plans 

MAC Multi-Agency Coordination

METI Management and Engineering Technologies International, Inc 

MNICS Minnesota Incident Command System

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MT Montana 

NACo National Association of Counties

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASF National Association of State Foresters

NEMAC National Environmental Modeling and Analysis Center (UNC Asheville) 

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NGA National Governors’ Association

NGO Non-Governmental Organization (e.g., nonprofit) 

NICC National Interagency Coordination Center 

NIFC National Interagency Fire Center 

NLC National League of Cities

NMAC National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service

NSAT National Science and Analysis Team

NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OR Oregon 
 55 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

OWFC Office of Wildland Fire Coordination

PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

QFR Quadrennial Fire Review

RFA Rural Fire Assistance 

RFD Rural Fire Department

ROSS Resource Ordering and Status System

RPL Recognition of Prior Learning 

RSC Regional Strategy Committee

SAF Society of American Foresters

SERPPAS Southern Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability

SFA State Fire Assistance

SGA Southern Governors’ Association

SGSF Southern Group of State Foresters

SWRA Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment 

TFS Texas Forest Service

TIFMAS Texas Intrastate Fire Mutual Aid System

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFA U.S. Fire Administration

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VFA Volunteer Fire Assistance

VFD Volunteer Fire Department

WFDSS Wildfire Decision Support System

WFEC Wildland Fire Executive Council

WFLC Wildland Fire Leadership Council

WG Working Group 

WGA Western Governors’ Association

WRSC Western Regional Strategy Committee 

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
May 2012 56 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

APPENDIX C: REFERENCES

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Foundational Documents

2009 Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR), http://www.iafc.org/files/wild_QFR2009Report.pdf

National Policy Framework Documents including: 

 A Call to Action, 2009, http://forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/

call_to_action_01232009.pdf 

 Artley, Donald, Wildland Fire Protection and Response in the United States The Responsibilities, 

Authorities, and Roles of Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Government. International Association of 

Fire Chiefs, 2009 (Missions Report). http://forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/

wildlandfireprotectionandresponseusaug09.pdf 

 Mutual Expectations for Preparedness and Suppression in the Interface, http://

forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/mutual_expectations_2010.pdf 

 A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 

A 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan. Western Governors Association, 2006, http://

forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/10-yearstrategyfinal_dec2006.pdf 

References and Documents

A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, 2010. http://forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/

documents/reports/1_CohesiveStrategy03172011.pdf 

Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009 Report to Congress, 2010. http://

forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/reports/2_ReportToCongress03172011.pdf 

Jakes, P. et al. Improving Wildfire Preparedness: Lessons from Communities Across the U.S., Human 

Ecology Review, Vol 14, No 2, 2007, Society of Human Ecology. http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/faculty/monroe/

jakesetal.pdf 

Northeastern Regional Strategy Committee. 2011. A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: 

Northeastern Regional Assessment. September 30, 2011. 56 p 

O’Laughlin, Jay. 2011. “Federal Land as a Percentage of Total State Land Area,” Fact Sheet #8, Policy 

Analysis Group, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow. Available online at http://

www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=120573 

Southeastern Regional Strategy Committee. 2011. A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: 

Southeastern Regional Assessment. September 30, 2011. 79 p. 

Western Regional Strategy Committee. 2011. A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: Western 

Regional Assessment. September 30, 2011. 61 p. 
 57 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

References from A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: Northeastern Regional Assessment. 

September 30, 2011.

Cardille, Jeffrey A., S. J. Ventura, and M. G. Turner. 2001. Environmental and Social Factors Influencing 

Wildfires in the Upper Midwest, United States. Ecological Applications 11:111–127. 

McCaffrey, Sarah. Personal communication. 

Mangan, Richard. 2007. Wildland firefighter fatalities in the United States: 1990–2006. Boise, ID: National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group, Safety and Health Working Team, National Interagency Fire Center 841: 28. 

Noss, Reed F., E. T LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott, 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A 

Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. U.S Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Service, 

Washington D.C. http://biology.usgs.gov/pubs/ecosys.htm 

Nowacki, Gregory J., and M. D. Abrams. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the 

eastern United States. BioScience 58:123–138. 

Nowak, D., and J. Walton. 2005. Projected urban growth (2000–2050) and its estimated impact on the U.S. 

forest resource. Journal of Forestry 103(8): 383–389. 

Nowak, D., J. Walton, J. Dwyer, L. Kaya, and S. Myeong. 2005. The increasing influence of urban 

environments on U.S. forest management. Journal of Forestry 103(8): 377–382. 

Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S. Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry. 2005. The 

Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States. Ecological Applications 15:799–805. 

Smith, B., P. Miles, C. Perry, and S. Pugh. 2009. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office: 336. 

Stein, S., R. McRoberts, R. Alig, M. Nelson, D. Theobald, M. Eley, M. Dechter, and M. Carr. 2005. Forests 

on the edge: housing development on America’s private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 16. 

Swanston, C., M. Janowiak, L. Iverson, L. Parker, D. Mladenoff, L. Brandt, P. Butler, M. St. Pierre, A. 

Prasad, S. Matthews, M. Peters, D. Higgins, and A. Dorland. 2011. Ecosystem vulnerability assessment 

and synthesis: a report from the Climate Change Response Framework Project in Northern Wisconsin. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-82. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station: 142. 

USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management. 2006. Annual Wildland Fire Summary Report. 

[Online database]. http://famweb.nwcg.gov. [Date accessed unknown]. 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area. 2007. Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Strategic 

Plan Update for Fiscal Years 2008–2012. Newtown Square, PA. http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/strat_plan/

na_strategic_plan_2008-2012_lr.pdf 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Cooperative Fire Management. 2007. 

Combined Summaries of Community Wildfire Protection Data, March. Newtown Square, PA. 
May 2012 58 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

References from A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: Southeastern Regional Assessment. 

September 30, 2011. 

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

GAO/RCED-99-65, April 13, 2000. 

Andreu, A., and L. A. Hermansen-Baez. 2008. Southern Group of State Foresters. Fire in the South 2. The 

Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment. 

Briefing paper: Identifying Communities at Risk and Prioritizing Risk-Reduction Projects. July 2010. http://

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

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

Implementation, July 2010. http://www.stateforesters.org/files/201007-NASF-FedFirePolicyBriefingPaper.pdf 

Brown, D.G., K. M. Johnson, T. R. Loveland, and D. M. Theobald. 2005. Rural Land-Use Trends in the 

Conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological Applications 15(6) 2005:1851–1863. 

Buckley, D., D. Carlton, D. Krieter, and K. Sabourin. 2006. Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment Final 

Report. http://www.southernwildfirerisk.com/reports/projectreports.html 

Butler, B. J., and D. N. Wear. 2011. Chapter 5. Forest Ownership Dynamics of Southern Forests. In: Forest 

Futures Technical Report. Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis (eds.). http://www.srs.fs.fed.usda.gov/futures/ 

Hermansen-Baez, L. A., J. P. Prestemon, D. T. Butry, K. L. Abt, R. Sutphen. The Economic Benefits of 

Wildfire Prevention Education. 2011. http://www.interfaceSoutheast.org/products/fact_sheets_the-economic

-benefits-of-wildfire-prevention-education/ or www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_hermansenoo2.pdf 

Lippincott, C. L. 2000. Effects of Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. Cogon grass invasion on fire regime in 

Florida sandhill (USA). Natural Areas Journal 20:140–149. 

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. 

Miller, J. H. D. and J. Coulson Lemke. Chapter 15. The Invasion of Southern Forests by Nonnative Plants: 

Current and Future Occupation with Impacts, Management Strategies, and Mitigation Approaches. In: 

Forest Futures Technical Report. Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis. http://www.srs.fs.fed.usda.gov/futures/ 

Mutual Expectations for Preparedness and Suppression in the Interface, http://

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

Nowacki, G.J., and M. D. Abrams. 2008. The demise of fire and ‘‘mesophication’’ of the eastern United 

States. BioScience, 58: 123–128. 

Poulter, B., R. L. Feldman, M. M. Brinson, B. P. Horton, M. K. Orbach, S. H. Pearsall, E. Reyes, S. R. 

Riggs, and J. C. Whitehead. 2009. Sea-level rise research and dialogue in North Carolina: Creating 

windows for policy change. Ocean and Coastal Management. 52(3-4):147–153. 

Prestemon, J. P., D. T. Butry, K. L. Abt, and R. Sutphen. 2010. Net benefits of wildfire prevention education 

efforts. Forest Science 56 (2): 181–192. 
 59 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Smeins, F. E. and L. B. Merrill. 1988. Long-term Change in a Semi-arid Grassland. In: Edwards Plateau 

Vegetation – Plant Ecological Studies in Central Texas. Edited by Amos B.B. and F.R. Gehlbach. Baylor 

Univ. Press, Waco, Texas. 144 p. 

Southern Group of State Foresters 2007. Issue Paper Wildland Fire and Forest Fuels on Private and State 

Lands. http://www.forestry.ok.gov/websites/forestry/images/3.5_3000_CF_Wildland%20Fire%20And%

20Fuels%20Priority%20Issue%20Paper.pdf 

Stanturf, J. A., and S. L. Goodrick. 2011. Chapter 17: Fire. In: Forest Futures Technical Report. Wear, D. 

N., and J. G. Greis. http://www.srs.fs.fed.usda.gov/futures/ 

Stephens, S.L. 2005. Forest fire causes and extent on United States Forest Service lands. International

Journal of Wildland Fire. 2005. 14, 213–222. 

U.S. Forest Service. United States Global Change Research Program. 2011. Southeast Region. In. 

USGCRP Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. Accessed July 30, 2011. http://

www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/regional-climatechange-impacts/southeast 

Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis. 2011. The Southern Forest Futures Project Summary Report (Draft). U.S. 

Forest Service. 

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

1999. U.S. General Accounting Office. 

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

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

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. 

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

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

References from A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: Western Regional Assessment. 

September 30, 2011. 

Public Land Ownership by States. http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Third Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service; Conducted 

in 2010 and Including Comparisons to the 2001 and 2005 Needs Assessment Surveys. 
May 2012 60 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

APPENDIX D: MEMBERSHIP LISTS

Northeast Region 

Northeast Regional Strategy Committee

Name Agency / Organization 

George Baker (Co-Chair) IAFC 

Doreen Blaker Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 

Steve Jakala, retired FWS 

Tim Hepola FWS 

Jim Johnson County Commissioner, Minnesota - NACo 

Jim Loach NPS 

Logan Lee USFS Northern Region 

Tom Remus BIA 

Matt Rollins (Co-Chair) USGS 

Tom Schuler USFS, Northern Research Station 

Brad Simpkins New Hampshire State Forester - NASF 

Dan Yaussy USFS, Northern Research Station 

Billy Terry USFS (Alternate) 

Paul Charland FWS (Alternate) 

Dan Dearborn FWS (Alternate) 
 61 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Northeast RSC Support Staff

Northeast RSC Working Group 

Name Agency / Organization 

Maureen Brooks, Working Group Lead USFS 

Terry Gallagher, Working Group Lead USFS 

Steve Olsen Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Jack McGowan-Stinski TNC 

Scott Bearer TNC 

Drew Daily Big Rivers Compact 

Ron Stoffel Great Lakes Compact 

Randy White Mid-Atlantic Compact 

Tom Parent Northeast Compact 

Marty Cassellius BIA 

Dave Pergolski BIA 

Jeremy Bennett BIA 

Jeffrey (Zeke) Seabright NPS 

Cody Wienk NPS 

Allen Carter FWS 

Name Agency / Organization 

Jenna Sloan, Coordination Lead/CSSC Liaison DOI 

Gus Smith, Coordination Lead/CSSC Liaison DOI 

Tom Harbour (WFEC Liaison) USFS 

Danny Lee (NSAT Liaison) USFS, National Science Team 

Maureen Brooks USFS 

Terry Gallagher USFS 

Christie Wiley DOI 
May 2012 62 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Southeast Region 

Southeast Regional Strategy Committee 

Name Agency / Organization 

Mike Zupko (Chair) SGA / SGSF 

Kevin Fitzgerald (Vice Chair) NPS 

Liz Agpaoa USFS Southern Region 

Tom Boggus Texas State Forester - NASF 

Ed Brunson BIA 

Rob Doudrick USFS Southern Research Station 

Bob Eaton FWS 

Jim Ham County Commissioner, Georgia 

Tom Lowry Choctaw Nation 

Alexa McKerrow USGS 

Bruce Woods Texas Forest Service / IAFC 

Kier Klepzig SRS 

Dan Olsen USFS (Alternate) 

Liz Struhar NPS (Alternate) 

Larry Mahler BIA (Alternate) 

Southeast RSC Working Group 

Name Agency / Organization 

David Frederick (Chair) SGSF 

Darryl Jones (Vice Chair) South Carolina Forestry Commission 

Tom Spencer (Vice Chair) Texas Forest Service 

Forrest Blackbear BIA 

Vince Carver FWS 

Margit Bucher The Nature Conservancy 

Alexa McKerrow USGS 

Shardul Raval USFS Southern Region 

Rachel Smith USFS Southern Region 

Liz Struhar NPS 
 63 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Southeast RSC Support Staff 

West Region 

West Regional Strategy Committee 

Name Agency / Organization 

Sandy Cantler (Coordination Lead/CSSC Liaison) USFS 

Jim Karels (WFEC Liaison) Florida Forest Service 

Danny Lee (NSAT Liaison) USFS / NSAT 

Carol Deering USGS 

Jim Fox UNC Asheville 

Jeff Hicks UNC Asheville 

Matthew Hutchins UNC Asheville 

Karin Lichtenstein – Project Manager/Research 

Scientist, NEMAC UNC Asheville 

Tom Quigley NSAT 

Name Agency / Organization 

Aden Seidlitz BLM 

Ann Walker WGA 

Bob Harrington Montana State Forester - NASF 

Corbin Newman (Co-Chair) USFS Southwest Region 

Joe Stutler (Co-Chair; WWG Liaison) Deschutes County, Oregon - IAFC 

John Philbin BIA 

Karen Taylor-Goodrich NPS 

Pam Ensley FWS 

Robert Cope Lemhi County, Idaho - NACo 

Sam Foster USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station 

Tony Harwood Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes 

Warren Day USGS 
May 2012 64 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

West RSC Working Group

West RSC Support Staff 

Name Agency / Organization 

Bill Avey USFS 

Bill Tripp Karuk Tribe 

Carol Daly Flathead Economic Policy - WGA 

Craig Glazier Idaho Department of Lands 

David Seesholtz USFS 

Eric Knapp USFS 

Gene Lonning BIA 

Jesse Duhnkrack NPS 

Joe Freeland (Team Lead) BLM 

Kevin Ryan USFS Rocky Mountain Experimental Station 

Laura McCarthy TNC 

Sue Stewart USFS 

Travis Medema Oregon Department of Forestry 

Name Agency / Organization 

Alan Quan (Coordination Lead/CSSC Liaison) USFS 

Dana Coelho (Writer/Editor) Western Forestry Leadership Coalition / USFS 

Douglas MacDonald (WFEC Liaison) IAFC 
 65 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Cohesive Strategy Subcommittee 

Cohesive Strategy Subcommittee Support Staff 

Name Agency / Organization 

Vicki Christiansen/Lew Southard USFS 

Jenna Sloan/Gus Smith DOI 

Dan Smith NASF 

Caitlyn Pollihan NASF / CWSF 

Bob Roper/Douglas MacDonald IAFC 

Ann Walker WGA 

Ryan Yates NACo 

Patti Blankenship DHS / USFA 

Jim Erickson ITC 

Kirk Rowdabaugh (WFEC Liaison) DOI 

Name Agency / Organization

Alan Quan USFS 

Sandra Cantler USFS 

Dana Coelho (Writer/Editor) Western Forestry Leadership Coalition / USFS 

Pat Goude (Writer/Editor) USFS 

Cheryl Renner (Writer/Editor) Contractor 
May 2012 66 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

National Science and Analysis Team 

Numerous other individuals contributed to one or more of the sub-teams within the Phase II effort. Refer 

to Appendix A of the NSAT Report for a full listing of contributors. 

Name Agency / Organization

Danny Lee (Co-Lead) USFS 

Tom Quigley (Co-Lead) Contractor, METI 

John Freemuth 

Topical Subteam Lead - Policy Effectiveness Boise State University 

Scott Goodrick 

Topical Subteam Lead - Smoke Management USFS 

Andy Kirsch 

Topical Subteam Lead - Landscape Resiliency NPS 

Jason Kreitler 

Topical Subteam Lead - Fire-Adapted Human 

Communities

USGS 

Darek Nalle

Topical Subteam Lead - Wildfire Response USFS 

Steve Norman 

Topical Subteam Lead - Firefighter Safety USFS 

Jeff Prestemon 

Topical Subteam Lead - Ignitions and Prevention USFS 

Matthew Thompson 

Topical Subteam Lead - Fuels Management USFS 
 67 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Cohesive Strategy Communication Work Group

Name Agency / Organization 

Mary Jacobs (WFEC Liaison) NLC 

Assistant City Manager, Sierra Vista, AZ 

Roberta D’Amico (Lead Coordinator) DOI / NPS 

Judith Downing USFS 

Sarah McCreary NASF 

Shawn Stokes IAFC
May 2012 68 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Wildland Fire Executive Council

Name Agency / Organization

Bill Kaage NWCG 

Douglas MacDonald IAFC 

Elizabeth Strobridge NGA 

Glenn Gaines DHS / USFA 

Jim Erickson ITC 

Jim Karels NASF 

Kirk Rowdabaugh DOI 

Mary Jacobs NLC 

Ryan Yates NACo 

Tom Harbour USFS 

Support Staff

Roy Johnson, DFO OWFC 

Shari Shetler, Exec. Sec. OWFC 
 69 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Wildland Fire Leadership Council 

Name Agency / Organization 

Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget, WFLC Chair 

DOI 

Butch Blazer, USDA Deputy Undersecretary for 

Natural Resources and the Environment 

USDA 

Tom Tidwell, Chief USFS 

Jonathan Jarvis, Director NPS 

Rowan Gould, Acting Director USFWS 

Bob Abbey, Director BLM 

Mike Black, Director BIA 

Marcia McNutt, Director USGS 

Glenn Gaines 

Deputy United States Fire Administrator 

DHS / USFA 

John Kitzhaber, Governor, State of Oregon Governor, Western States Representative 

Bev Perdue, Governor, State of North Carolina Governor, National Governors’ Association 

Dan Shoun, County Commissioner, Lake County, 

State of Oregon 

NACo 

Joe Durglo, President, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes President, ITC 

Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor, City of Apple Valley NLC 

Jeff Jahnke, State Forester, State of Colorado NASF 

Robert Roper, Chief, Ventura County (California) Fire 

Department 

IAFC 
May 2012 70 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

APPENDIX E: QUESTIONS FROM THE

COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK AND TOOLS (CRAFT) 
 71 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Tree mortality in the United States in 2010 

APPENDIX F: MAPS
May 2012 72 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

National insect and disease risk in 2006 
 73 May 2012 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

Source: Smith, W. Brad, tech. coord.; Miles, Patrick D., data coord.; Perry, Charles H., map coord.; Pugh, Scott A., Data CD coord. 2009. Forest 

Resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington 

Office.

United States total roundwood harvest volume, 2007. 
May 2012 74 

COHESIVE STRATEGY

APPENDIX G: COMMUNICATIONS 

FRAMEWORK

At the November 2011 Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) meeting, WFLC members concurred 

with the November version of the Communications Framework presented. Recognizing the need for a 

Communications Steering Group, WFLC directed the Wildland Fire Executive Council to develop an 

implementation scenario for the communication efforts. The Communications Steering Group will be 

defined, developed, and implemented in the first half of the 2012 calendar year. Since communications 

is a dynamic process, the strategy and tactics will evolve and be evaluated for their effectiveness on a 

routine basis.