Common use of USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES Clause in Contracts

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • The cost sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • The cost share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • Any distinctions in what cost share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. A. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • The cost cost-sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • The cost cost-share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • Any distinctions in what cost cost-share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost cost-sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost cost-share methodologies may include, but are not limited to: a. each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands, b. each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands, c. cost share by percentage of ownership,

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • The cost cost-sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • The cost cost-share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • Any distinctions in what cost cost-share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost cost-sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost cost-share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:: each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands, each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands, cost share by percentage of ownership, cost is apportioned by geographic division or percent of effort. Examples of geographic divisions are: Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campgrounds, reconciliation of daily costs (for larger, multi-day incidents). This method relies upon daily agreed to costs, using Incident Action Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions. Reimbursements must be followed up by a final xxxx. Training: Identify training needs, schedules, resources available, and opportunities for cost sharing. Communication Systems: Identify specific radio frequencies, computer system access, data transmission lines, communication sites, and communications equipment shared between Parties. Access to systems and facilities will be approved only by agency authorized personnel and in accordance with agency laws, regulations and policies governing security of systems and facilities. Fire Weather Systems: Specify maintenance, use and management, if any.

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. Cost A. Cost-Share Agreement (Cost Share MethodologiesAgreement 1) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • The cost cost-sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • . 2) The cost cost-share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • Any . 3) There may be distinctions in what cost cost-share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost cost-sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o : a. When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o . b. In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost cost-share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:: o each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands, o each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands, o cost-share by percentage of ownership, o cost is apportioned by geographic division or percent of effort. Examples of geographic divisions are: Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campgrounds, o reconciliation of daily costs (for larger, multi-day incidents). This method relies upon daily agreed to costs, using Incident Action Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions. Reimbursements must be followed up by a final xxxx. o administrative costs will be included in the cost-share agreement if applicable 4) For size class C and above fires, cost-share agreements will be prepared by the responsible unit administrator(s) or their authorized representative when there is (1) a multi-jurisdictional incident or (2) an incident which threatens or xxxxx across direct protection boundaries of SDWF and BKF. Cost-share agreements for size class C and above fires will be negotiated on a per fire basis regardless of selected strategies and tactics including those fires that may be managed for multiple objectives. 5) The agencies agree that all reasonable and necessary costs incurred to meet the protection responsibilities within each agency’s direct protection area will be the responsibility of that agency. The agencies agree that in the event a nongovernmental contract resource is used on an incident that the agency requesting the resource may make payment for services rendered directly to the contract resource under another agency's contract. Federal agencies can only pay from nonfederal contracts if a federal contracting officer reviews and cosigns the nonfederal contract. Typically, suppression actions and their associated costs are driven by perceived threats to values at risk. Values at risk may, in turn, require more intensive suppression efforts and therefore, higher suppression costs in one agency’s direct protection area than in another. These situations will be considered when determining each agency’s share of costs for an incident. 6) For fires where values at risk are typically associated with natural resources on undeveloped lands and when those resources are uniform across jurisdictions it is usually appropriate to share costs based on the percentage of acres burned on each jurisdiction. Fires occurring within urban interface areas with high value improvement at risk or whenever resource values (natural or other) differ significantly across jurisdictions may require an assessment of suppression efforts (costs) directed at protection of respective resources/values are required. This assessment may provide the basis for identifying cost-shares in the agreement. Unless unusual circumstances exist, it is the intent of this Operating Plan that a cost-share agreement will be completed prior to the fire being declared contained for all extended attack fires. 7) For temporary support level functions, pre-positioning of suppression resources or facilities established during periods of extraordinary fire activity or as authorized under Fire Severity conditions defined by each jurisdiction, similar cost sharing procedures may be used. 8) SDWF receives its procurement authority from state laws and is therefore not subject to federal procurement laws. Whenever SDWF is responsible for the management of an incident SDWF will comply with state laws and regulations covering procurement. Procurement costs by one agency in support of another that are reasonable and prudent may be charged to the protecting agency as a condition of reimbursable assistance. 9) Equipment loaned by one party to another shall be ordered through normal dispatching channels. Loaned equipment becomes the responsibility of the borrower and shall be returned in the same condition as when received, normal wear accepted. The borrower will repair damages in excess of normal wear and will replace items lost or destroyed.

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. A. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • ● The cost cost-sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • ● The cost cost-share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • ● Any distinctions in what cost cost-share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost cost- sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost cost-share methodologies may include, but are not limited to: a. each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands, b. each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands, c. cost share by percentage of ownership,

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. 1. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) ): Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • . A. The cost sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • . B. The cost share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • . C. Any distinctions in what cost share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, fuels and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o : i. When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. ii. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction jurisdictional boundaries, cost share methodologies may include, but are not limited to: a. Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands. b. Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands. c. Cost share by percentage of ownership (official acreage). d. Cost is apportioned by geographic division of percent of effort. Examples of geographic divisions are Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campground. e. Reconciliation of daily costs (for larger, multi-day incidents). This method relies upon daily agreed to costs, using Incident Action Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions. Reimbursements must be followex xx by a final bill. D. Cost Share Methodologies will be completed in the event that wildfires burn onto other jurisdictions past the reciprocal initial attack period. The suggested cost share methodology for reimbursable incidents will be settled on actual costs on the total burned acres. The final acreage for the incident will be determined by using mapping technology. See Appendix F for the required information and template for the Cost Share Agreement.

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • The cost cost-sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • The cost cost-share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectivesto create benefit. • Any distinctions in what cost cost-share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost cost-sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives benefit spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may shall be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost boundaries cost-share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. Cost A. Cost-Share Agreement (Cost Share MethodologiesAgreement 1) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • The cost cost-sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • . 2) The cost cost-share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • Any a 3) There may be distinctions in what cost cost-share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost cost-sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o : a. When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o . b. In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost cost-share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:: o each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands, o each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands, o cost-share by percentage of ownership, o cost is apportioned by geographic division or percent of effort. Examples of geographic divisions are: Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campgrounds, o reconciliation of daily costs (for larger, multi-day incidents). This method relies upon daily agreed to costs, using Incident Action Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions. Reimbursements must be followed up by a final xxxx. o administrative costs will be included in the cost-share agreement if applicable 4) For size class C and above fires, cost-share agreements will be prepared by the responsible unit administrator(s) or their authorized representative when there is (1) a multi-jurisdictional incident or (2) an incident which threatens or xxxxx across direct protection boundaries of SDWF and BKF. Cost-share agreements for size class C and above fires will be negotiated on a per fire basis regardless of selected strategies and tactics including those fires that may be managed for multiple objectives. 5) The agencies agree that all reasonable and necessary costs incurred to meet the protection responsibilities within each agency’s direct protection area will be the responsibility of that 6) For fires where values at risk are typically associated with natural resources on undeveloped lands and when those resources are uniform across jurisdictions it is usually appropriate to share costs based on the percentage of acres burned on each jurisdiction. Fires occurring within urban interface areas with high value improvement at risk or whenever resource values (natural or other) differ significantly across jurisdictions may require an assessment of suppression efforts (costs) directed at protection of respective resources/values are required. This assessment may provide the basis for identifying cost-shares in the agreement. Unless unusual circumstances exist, it is the intent of this Operating Plan that a cost-share agreement will be completed prior to the fire being declared contained for all extended attack fires. 7) For temporary support level functions, pre-positioning of suppression resources or facilities established during periods of extraordinary fire activity or as authorized under Fire Severity conditions defined by each jurisdiction, similar cost sharing procedures may be used. 8) SDWF receives its procurement authority from state laws and is therefore not subject to federal procurement laws. Whenever SDWF is responsible for the management of an incident SDWF will comply with state laws and regulations covering procurement. Procurement costs by one agency in support of another that are reasonable and prudent may be charged to the protecting agency as a condition of reimbursable assistance. 9) Equipment loaned by one party to another shall be ordered through normal dispatching channels. Loaned equipment becomes the responsibility of the borrower and shall be returned in the same condition as when received, normal wear accepted. The borrower will repair damages in excess of normal wear and will replace items lost or destroyed.

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. •  The cost sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. •  The cost share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. •  Any distinctions in what cost share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:

USE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERAGENCY FIRE RESOURCES. Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) Describe how costs will be shared when a fire spreads into another jurisdiction. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire. • The cost sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted. • The cost share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives. • Any distinctions in what cost share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following: o When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. o In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:: Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands. Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands. Cost share by percentage of ownership. Cost is apportioned by geographic division or percent of effort. Examples of geographic divisions are: Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campground. Reconciliation of daily costs (for larger, multi-day incidents). This method relies upon daily agreed to costs, using Incident Action Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions. Reimbursements must be followed up by a final bill. Training: Identify training needs, schedules, resources available, and opportunities for cost sharing. Communication Systems: Identify specific radio frequencies, computer system access, data transmission lines, communication sites, and communications equipment shared between Parties. Access to systems and facilities will be approved only by agency authorized personnel and in accordance with agency laws, regulations, and policies governing security of systems and facilities. Fire Weather Systems: Specify maintenance, use and management, if any.