Glossary Terms for Review STAGING

This is a working page for glossary items that have been proposed, received comments, and comments are being evaluated so they are not yet approved.

Term for Review Type of Request Comments Due By Steward Review Comments
Advisory Revise 2021-05-03 Risk Management Committee
  • The term may confuse staff that are familiar with a Fire Behavior and Fuels "Advisory" which has a red hatched border.  It should be referenced in the definition that "Fire Behavior and Fuels Advisories are not included in this definition and are a separate entry in the glossary."

Detection Method New 2021-05-03 Fire Reporting Subcommittee
  • Suggest this be broken into distinct categories and subtypes - example provided below (similar to fire cause methodology). Additionally recommend considering how the data might be used (it seems as though we could be interested in the number/percent of fires detected using remote technology vs. patrols, and "on purpose vs. opportunistic" and how that might relate to damages from a fire (and possibly be applied to recommend changes to detection methods).  Finally, recommend avoiding the use of "Other" at all costs as it just turns into the junk drawer.

    Scope: Intentional (INT) vs. Opportunistic (OPP)

    Tool (likely a better label than this): (INT)Remote Sensing (RS), Lookout (LO), Patrol (PT), (OPP) Human (HU)

    Sub-tool: (RS)Satellite, Infrared, Lightning Network, Cameras, (LO) Staffed Tower, (PT) Aircraft, Vehicle, (HU) Public, Employee

    Category of Person: N/A, Government Employee or Volunteer, Person of Interest, Responsible Party, Recreator, Adjacent Landowner

    Where fire was reported to: 911, Interagency Dispatch, Law Enforcement, Fire Department, Federal Wildland Fire Employee, DOI / USDA -
    BIA, BLM, BOR, FWS, NPS, USFS, State, County, Local

Minimum Impact Strategy and Tactics Revise 2021-05-03 Interagency Fire Planning Committee
  • One agreed.  One:

    Response on behalf of the NWCG Fuels Management Committee: The body of practices know as MIST was originally proposed by fire managers, but has been further developed and curated by the Wilderness community. As such, we advise against NWCG seeking a substantive change to the MIST title and definition without consultation and support from our Wilderness program managers from the respective USDA/DOI bureaus. An examination of existing teaching and reference materials in authoritative sources such as the Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center reveals that almost every training video, document and other reference is titled Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics.  To alter the name in NWCG glossary could cause unintended consequences for the Wilderness training program and make it more difficult to locate the applicable training and reference materials, especially if the Wilderness programs are unaware of these changes made by NWCG and do not take steps to update materials and titles to the new acronym.  We acknowledge the READ SC's intent and the fact that they have already adopted the rebranded acronym in PMS 313, however to maintain working relationships between fire and wilderness program areas in each of the affected agencies, confirmation that agency Wilderness program managers support this change is critical. If the READ SC has already done this, then good work, that addresses our concern. But if not, it is the Wilderness programs that provide much of the training in MIST to their staffs who act as READS in Wilderness settings, so our advice is that the Wilderness program managers be consulted and that deference be given to their preference for use of the old vs new MIST acronym.

Reason For Responding To Incident On Unprotected Land Revise 2021-05-03 Interagency Fire Planning Committee
  • This is an issue in Idaho with over a million acres of truly unprotected lands and this will support the choice made to respond, and clarify financial responsibilities for State and Federal partners.

  • Remove the ", but hasn't yet burned onto Protected Lands." as it is redundant and not proper when you look at the second option, "burned onto Protected Lands."

  • DMC asked if we could add some clarification in the integration standard for these rationale.  IRWIN asked if we could change the Data Exchange Standard to: Threat to Protected Lands and have Data Entry Guidelines be: Threat to Protected Lands, but hasn't burned onto Protected Lands

    No change for Burned onto Protected verbiage for each Data Exchange Standard and Data Entry Guidelines

    DMC also request some additional verbiage - Associated Business Rule - User selects the value for reason for response.  The value SHOULD NOT be updated if there is a change AFTER the initial response.  For example, if an agency responded to an incident where the point of origin is on unprotected land because it was a Threat to Protected Lands, and later the fire burns onto Protected Lands, do not update. The initial response was because it was a threat.

Safety Warning Revise 2021-05-03 Risk Management Committee
  • Based on my previous entry under "Advisory" will Fire Behavior and Fuels Advisories be converted to "warnings".