This is not my area of expertise, for sure, but I’ll try to describe what I have seen and heard. My point being that if you are interested in reducing smoke and destruction from wildfires to communities, watersheds, etc., these are the most important pieces of the puzzle.
For wildfires to not have serious negative impacts, you need. Enough workers, equipment, good food, and fuel when and where you need them., which we might call “suppression capacity.” We don’t hear much about the latter, except maybe when a state buys more aircraft, when food is bad, and when there are problems with fuel. The climate/wildfire folks don’t talk about it much at all, or link fire suppression capacity, strategies and tactics to wildfires, smoke and damage.
Example in the news right now for Washington State:
“In addition to declaring a statewide emergency, this order suspends statutory limitations on vehicle driver hours of service for delivery of fuel supplies essential to statewide firefighting efforts until August 16, 2024,” Inslee’s statement reads.
Local fire officials said they’re feeling the effects of the active wildfire season.
“This last week we’ve had almost every resource that’s available statewide from the local fire jurisdictions out on fires and they continue to request resources out of that pool of people that are willing to send stuff out,” said Chief Eric Andrews with Sky Valley Fire.
The Hotshot Wakeup wrote a piece that looked into the unable to fill list and proposed some capacity solutions.
The UTF list is the list of positions on wildfires that dispatches, and Regions are Unable To Fill for ongoing incidents and active fires. This list has been steadily growing over the last month as resources get stretched thin by the increasing number of wildfires nationwide. It’s not trending to be a record fire season yet… but it’s busy.
This week, there are multiple hundreds of UTFs for division-qualified people, taskforce-qualified people, Logistics, Finance, Dispatch, and Heavy Equipment Bosses. The UTF list just for Divisions and Taskforce Leaders alone is pages and pages long.
These are not your entry-level positions…
These are the middle management and even some upper management positions that have hundreds of vacancies on active wildfires that they simply cannot fill. I remember when you would see 12 Division positions on a UTF list a decade ago, and people would be shocked and clamoring to get that assignment.
It has grown to a point where it’s becoming a problem.
So, where did all the qualified and middle management people go?
Here’s what THW recommends:
We need to invest the time, money, and effort in the folks that are currently trying to work their way up the qualification ladder. We need to not go on an agency wide hiring freeze… (currently happening), we need to help promote those that want it the most, not faceless D.C. approved promotions without ever meeting applicants. Local, ground up, recruitment and training of committed people that we need to pay fairly.
Now, this may be a longer solution than just loading 747s with international firefighters ever month and flying them across an ocean, burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel, and millions of dollars, to put out fires each year… but in the long term it is much more sustainable.
Pay fairly, and also ensure that they have decent housing that they can afford.
Note: I am not blaming the Forest Service for this, this is the result of many decisions in the past, plus external forces the FS can’t control, like cost of housing, difficulty working with OPM (and ABQ), Congress and so on. I’m just pointing out that lack of resources would, logically, lead to more acres burned. Conceivably, the more resources, the greater the likelihood of less smoke, and other negative wildfire impacts.
When you think of the possibility of States and Regions hoarding resources, it’s pretty amazing that the system works as well as it does.
I am definitely not a “let’s go back to the past” in terms of logging, at the same time, were there more folks in the woods in the past with the capacity and equipment to deal with fires? As ranchland has converted to housing developments, are there fewer potential helpers out there?
When I joined the Forest Service, all employees were expected to get trained up and go on fires. I know we have moved beyond that idea, but is there some way that non-fire employees could contribute more? What about using employees of NGOs to do work instead of employees.. will that mean fewer folks with some kind of dual training?
Sure, there are easier to reach places with multiple professional fire folks available (think the Quarry fire). Then there are other places. Perhaps consciously building up fire capacity in those areas via employees, or wildland fire-trained volunteers?
Like I said at the beginning this is not my area.. but I think it’s important as part of the wildfire hexagon. Even apart from changes in strategies, tactics, and technology over time, people and their institutions seem to be the center of dealing with wildfires in terms of smoke and acres burned.
Finally, it’s pretty obvious that suppression depends on fossil fuels, planes, helicopters, bulldozers, engines, transport, camp generators for the foreseeable future. Oil and gas hate has no home here!
When the FS began stove piping the fire organization the era of immediate fire suppression began to cease. I’m with you, Sharon, back in the day everybody had a role to play in the fire organization and when that “dispatch” announced a fire, we all immediately became available.
There were, in fact, a lot more boots on the ground when logging ruled. Logging still does rule in certain Regions of the FS, albeit scaled back a bit. Equipment was scattered throughout the woods and timber sale contracts required people, tools and water trucks be on site.
One of my current efforts I’m trying to convey is how the FS is NOT doing a very good job of fuels management in some of their current treatment areas! I would not put my name on such a mess as they are making. Clearcut and thinning slash that actually make the area more fire prone than before they logged it! Is anybody paying attention? Roads that intersect, with heavy recreation traffic, treatment on lower 1/3 of slope, heavy flashy fuels concentrations and a sea of non-roaded green above on a steep slope.
Add to the shortfalls the “centralized” aspect of fire hire. Yes, there are good points and some not so good, but the efforts of ten years ago were jokes. I was a delegated Regional Forester Representative, able to sign off on hires. But boy oh boy, the DEI (called “diversity” back then) was alive and well. Most likely, the shortage of the so called “middle managers” positions result from such shenanigans of the past.
Solutions? Cross train recreation, timber and engineers (and whoever wants to) in fire operations. Develop those skill levels to aspire to greater responsibilities. Co-mingle those skill sets and employees to appreciate one another and build a cohesive initial attack force.
Yes. we can state there were more people in the woods then to do IA without wanting more logging, we can note it and think about tweaks that would fit into today’s thinking.
When you see questionable projects, do you contact the folks involved and ask their reasoning?
Oh yeah, and in process! 🤣. Not only fuels work but anything that’s just silly, In my opinion; recreation proposals that end decades of local uses, MVUM’s that are NOT following the Law, whether I like it or not, follow your (FS) own danged rules. Update the maps, as required, but seldom ever are.
Most of it centers on the PSICC, but I meddle in several Regions, in areas I see opportunity for doing a better job of management. And, places I have invested a personal stake in managing over a professional career.
The fuels issues just doesn’t make good sense, they (FS) had 3 Billion dollars yet can’t afford to pile, or burn slash created in their fuels treatments? The FS is a professional organization, they need to act like it!
I contact Congressional Delegates too, but so far only on National proposals, or pending Legislation.
It’s hard out here for us militia folks when we have to rush to get our day job workload finished before being allowed out on fire assignments. If we do get the green light we breathe smoke on the line with fire folks who are doing the exact same work but with 20k yearly bonus and 10 year earlier retirement. You get squeezed either way- help out and feel underpaid or sit out and miss the OT (which is needed to afford to live in FS duty locations these days). My experience out west was a giant wall between fire and non-fire staff so I don’t see cross-training being a realistic solution there. Out east there’s a stronger sense of teamwork but I’m afraid with the standardization of fire staffing we are trending towards losing that cross-training. What’s the incentive for other departments to take on additional fire responsibilities when we have enough work to do in our day jobs? I’m willing to help out but man I’m tired of being underpaid and underappreciated.
You are spot on, the discussion centers around what needs to change! You are not going to get FF Retirement but you do get the same OT and hazard pay the fire-types are getting. Developing a culture that breaks down the “wall” you talk about should be job #1!
This is fascinating, Jim- I was thrilled to get OT and hazard pay for fire (and tree climbing.) I think the retirement part didn’t bother me because I knew I didn’t want to be doing that work (wildfire) day in and day out.. it just wasn’t an issue as I recall with me and my silviculture buds. I remember my friend Susan M. would go around her home pointing to the most beautiful objects and naming the fire that the $ had come from (she was a PIO) .Something else is going on here.. here ares my hypotheses.. 1) non-fire salaries don’t go as far as they used to so the discrepancy is greater.. 2) some kind of cultural change that I don’t understand.
But there’s no difference between fire and non-fire salaries; each have the same HP and OT. Back in the day, as I recall, I did not want to be in fire, it was much more exciting in silviculture and presale. Fire folks had a relatively mundane workload, and we non-fire types normally got the off-Forest details. And as prescribed fire, it was all timber folks who went through the trading and certifications for Rx burning.
I agree, there is a cultural shift that’s been underway since about the 2000 National Fire Plan; no clue how to address it. Region 8 certainly has it figured out, as I can attest, more like the camaraderie of our recent (?) past….
Don’t get me wrong Sharon, the OT and H-pay are great as well as the experience. My point is that for a militia employee to fill these needed mid level OPS positions, he or she would need years of committed fireline time piled on top of normal forest management responsibilities. This presents a dilemma: take on the additional workload while others on the fireline are making more than you with fewer responsibilities or give up your current position and transfer to fire since you are doing the work anyway. As a silv forester with one foot in fire I struggle with this often as do many of my militia peers. Those of us in forest management are passionate about what we do and would hate to give it up, but the reality is that this agency prioritizes fire over all else. Timber employees can’t afford housing? No one cares. Firefighters can’t afford housing? Give those heroes more money!!!
Thanks, A. This helps me understand the situation. Seems like there might be changes so that the militia concept would work better. Do you have suggestions?
If the senate passes the WFPPA bill it would give higher incident pay to ALL responders on the fireline, so that would be a good first step.
I feel that some kind of retirement benefit would be warranted for those who spend a significant time in fire, thought I’m not sure how to quantify it. Crediting fire days worked towards retirement eligibility? e.g. if you work 365 total days on fire you can retire in 30 – 1 years.
Or how about using the higher firefighter annuity rate for time spent on fire? e.g. total years in fire x high 3 salary x 1.7% (as opposed to 1% for non-fire feds). That could add up to a few thousand in retirement each year for long time militia.
As far as improving the culture, I have no ideas though I will say that if USFS leadership wanted to tap into a militia workforce during peak fire season there are hundreds of qualified folks in R8/9 who could be mobilized during summer if allowed.
A. These sound like logical ideas to me. If we want to have a militia ready to work during fires (a), this is how they would change incentives and culture (b). I don’t know who would be in charge of deciding “how much of a thing do we want militia to be?” (a). I guess that would be fire leadership in S&PF? I wonder.