Will 2024 be the Year We Break the Wildfire Response System?

As we approach the 2024 wildfire season, it is becoming increasingly clear that the traditional methods and systems we have depended on may no longer suffice. This realization came into sharper focus as I engaged in an analysis of the upcoming fire season's challenges, employing red teaming techniques to uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement. This exercise highlighted a significant gap between our current capabilities and the evolving demands of wildfire management. It prompts me to consider whether a more collaborative and unified approach, akin to those seen in other critical global challenges, could offer a solution to the escalating wildfire crisis. Our efforts to combat wildfires are hampered by a myriad of challenges, from environmental conditions exacerbating the fires to systemic issues affecting our firefighting personnel and incident management teams. The urgency for a cohesive, strategic response has never been more pronounced.

?Why would 2024 be a busy fire season?

?The western United States is bracing for a potentially challenging wildfire season in 2024, driven by a convergence of worrying environmental conditions. A key concern is the below-normal snowpack, particularly in the upper third of the country, including traditionally wetter regions like the west side of the Cascade Range. This shortfall in the snowpack, which usually acts as a natural reservoir releasing water gradually through spring and early summer, means there will be significantly less moisture to sustain soils, rivers, and reservoirs. Consequently, the landscape is left drier and more prone to ignition and wildfire spread. Compounding this issue are the moderate to severe drought conditions already affecting many areas, further desiccating vegetation and soil and providing ample fuel for wildfires.

?

Adding to the concern is the anticipated development of La Ni?a this summer, a climate phenomenon known for bringing cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific and typically leading to reduced precipitation in the western U.S. This exacerbates the existing drought conditions, contributing to an even drier environment and elevating the risk of significant wildfires. Additionally, the potential for increased heat can create a volatile environment for forest fires, making them easier to start and harder to control.

The implications of these conditions extend beyond the immediate risk of wildfires. The diminished snowpack and effects of La Ni?a are also likely to reduce water supplies critical for agricultural, residential, and industrial uses, further stressing vegetation and complicating firefighting efforts due to limited water resources. Moreover, the broader climatic impacts of La Ni?a, including the potential for more severe hurricanes, could indirectly strain national emergency response resources, further challenging wildfire suppression efforts during peak periods.

These interlinked factors underscore the critical need for early preparation, strategic resource allocation, and the implementation of comprehensive mitigation strategies by fire management authorities and communities. Such proactive measures are essential to reduce the potential impact of wildfires in the western United States for the 2024 season, highlighting the importance of readiness and resilience in the face of evolving climate challenges.

?

Adapting to Unpredictability: Rethinking Wildfire Management and Response.

?When the wildfire season deviates from its usual progression, it can have significant consequences on the management and response efforts across the United States. The traditional wildfire season follows a predictable pattern, influenced by regional climatic and vegetative conditions, allowing for strategic resource allocation and sharing among states and regions. This system hinges on the seasonal and regional variability of wildfire risks, facilitating efficient management of firefighting resources, including personnel, equipment, and aircraft.

?

Typically, the wildfire season starts in the southwestern U.S. during late spring and early summer, moving northward and eastward as the season progresses. This phased approach enables the mobilization of firefighting resources to emerging threats and the redeployment of these resources to regions where the risk later increases, such as the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) plays a pivotal role in this coordination, ensuring that areas at high risk can access additional support when needed.

?

However, changing fire patterns, driven by climate change and other factors, add stress to the system. Fires are becoming more frequent, severe, and less predictable, disrupting the expected progression of fire seasons. This unpredictability strains the traditional wildfire response framework, necessitating adaptations in resource investment, year-round preparedness, and occasionally international cooperation. Wildfire management strategies are evolving to include proactive measures like fuel reduction and community preparedness, alongside the development of sophisticated predictive tools to anticipate fire risks more accurately. However, it is not an exact science, and a few weeks of record heat can change things dramatically.

When fire seasons do not evolve as expected, the consequences include strained resources, increased firefighting challenges, and potentially greater risks to life, property, and natural resources. This underscores the need for a flexible, adaptive response model capable of addressing the dynamic nature of wildfire risks today, ensuring that firefighting efforts remain effective in the face of increasingly unpredictable wildfire activity. This has a compounding effect.? Areas with a high fire potential may be unwilling to share resources with areas in need.? Simply put, we cannot fight fire across the West at the same time.?

?

Humans in a Strained System: Addressing Systemic Impacts on Firefighting Personnel

?This competition for resources is exacerbated by issues impacting firefighters. The systemic issues impacting firefighting personnel are multifaceted and significantly affect the federal wildland fire response's effectiveness. These challenges encompass a range of factors that have both direct and indirect impacts on firefighters' ability to manage and respond to wildfires effectively.

?

Directly, recruitment and retention pose significant challenges due in part to poor pay and the rising cost of living, leading to workforce shortages during critical periods of wildfire activity. This situation is exacerbated by the physical and mental fatigue resulting from being overworked, which directly impairs firefighters' readiness and performance, compromising safety for both firefighters and the communities they serve. Decreased morale among firefighting personnel can undermine team cohesion and the willingness to exert extra effort, while less experienced leadership may negatively affect decision-making in critical incidents.

?

Indirectly, the systemic issues lead to training and experience gaps within fire management teams due to high turnover rates and difficulties in retaining experienced personnel. These gaps can diminish the effectiveness of fire response strategies and the quality of training for new recruits. Budget constraints and recruitment challenges may also result in inadequate resource allocation, impacting fire suppression efforts and post-fire recovery work. Furthermore, the reduced effectiveness of wildland fire response can hinder community preparedness and engagement initiatives, which are essential for reducing wildfire impact.

?

The combination of these challenges threatens the long-term resilience of the federal wildland fire management system, potentially leading to larger, more destructive fires with severe consequences for ecosystems, communities, and the financial stability of fire management agencies. The cumulative effect of systemic issues also takes a toll on the mental health and well-being of firefighters, affecting individual personnel and team dynamics.

?

Addressing these systemic challenges requires comprehensive strategies, including improving pay and benefits, enhancing leadership development, ensuring adequate staffing levels, and investing in mental health initiatives. Implementing such measures is crucial for building a more resilient, effective, and motivated workforce capable of confronting the complexities of wildland fire management. Right now, there is a group of individuals who have committed a large part of their careers to federal service and invested in a federal retirement system.? A system that has demanded more of them without fair compensation and no fiscally viable way out of this specialized field.

?

Challenges and Risks of CIMT: The Transition to Complex Incident Management

The proposed full adoption of the Complex Incident Management Team (CIMT) concept, aiming to treat Type 2 Incident Management Teams (IMTs) as capable of managing the intricacies of highly complex incidents similar to those handled by Type 1 IMTs, introduces significant challenges that could potentially set Type 2 teams up for failure. Most Type 1 IMTs are familiar with the incidents that require strategic oversight on a large -scale and that require national or regional coordination. Their expertise encompasses not only logistics and strategic planning but also a deep understanding of the broader implications of the incident, including long-term environmental, community, and resource considerations.

?

Conversely, Type 2 IMTs typically operate within a more tactical scope, addressing incidents of moderate complexity where the focus is more on immediate operational tasks rather than the wide-ranging strategic decision-making required for Type 1 incidents. This operational versus strategic dichotomy underscores the potential pitfalls of equating the two types of teams without recognizing the distinct nature of their roles and the depth of expertise required for managing highly complex incidents. While my example is focused on Type 2 teams responding to Type 1 incidents, the opposite is also true.? The level of strategic effort necessary to effectively manage large-scale incidents can be misapplied to more straightforward incidents, and while Type 1 teams have Type 2 experience, there are many, including myself, that have not operated in that domain for several years.

?

The current emergency management system emphasizes learning through experience, which, while valuable, may not adequately prepare CIMTs for the escalating complexity of incidents they are increasingly facing. Efforts are underway to reform training and preparedness programs for future CIMTs, aiming to bridge this gap and equip them with the necessary strategic insight and resources. However, these changes have yet to be fully implemented. In fact, no additional training has been provided to Type 2 IMTs. Unfortunately, expectations for performance have preceded the skills development necessary for success.

?

Given this transitional phase, there is a genuine concern that placing Type 2 IMTs in charge of incidents traditionally reserved for Type 1 teams—without additional training, experience, or a reevaluation of their operational capabilities—might not only compromise the effectiveness of the response but also risk the safety of both the public and the firefighting personnel. It also risks diminishing public confidence in emergency management capabilities. As such, while the intentions behind promoting CIMTs are commendable, it is crucial to acknowledge and address the current limitations within the system to prevent setting these teams up for challenges beyond their current scope of expertise.

We continue to have fewer IMTs, despite the rebranding.

IMTs have been facing a recruitment and retention problem for several years, and the response has been to reduce team size.? When successful organizations face recruitment and retention problems such as those plaguing the IMTs, they often explore and implement actions in several key areas to address these challenges:

1. Compensation and Benefits: They review and adjust their compensation packages to ensure they are competitive in the market. This can include salary increases, bonuses, health insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits that attract and retain employees.
2. Workplace Environment and Culture: Creating a positive and inclusive workplace culture that fosters employee engagement and satisfaction is crucial. This might involve improving workplace conditions, ensuring a respectful and collaborative environment, and promoting a culture that aligns with the values and expectations of the workforce.
3. Career Development and Training: Offering opportunities for professional growth and development can help retain employees. This includes providing training programs, continuing education, career advancement opportunities, and clear pathways for progression within the organization. This should also include recognition and support for IMT participation.
4. Work Arrangements: Implementing work schedules that improve job satisfaction and work-life balance will make the organization more attractive to current and potential employees.
5. Employee Engagement and Recognition: Regularly engaging with employees through surveys, feedback mechanisms, and open communication channels helps to identify and address their concerns. Recognizing and rewarding employees for their contributions can also enhance morale and loyalty. Failing to take action will have the opposite effect.
6. Recruitment Strategies: Organizations revise their recruitment tactics to widen their talent pool. This should include leveraging all available means to attract diverse candidates.
7. Retention Analysis: Conducting exit interviews and analyzing turnover data can provide insights into why employees are leaving and help identify trends or issues that need to be addressed to improve retention.
8. Leadership Training: Investing in leadership training to improve their skills in people management, communication, and leadership can positively impact employee satisfaction and retention.

I do not believe any of this has been done, with the exception of retention analysis, which identifies the impact but does nothing to address the problem. If other things have been done, they have not worked and new options must be explored.

?

What does the Absence of WUI Codes Contribute to the Crisis?

?

The absence of effective Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) codes significantly exacerbates the wildfire crisis, contributing to a range of problems that increase the vulnerability of communities to wildfires. WUI codes are designed to mitigate wildfire risks by regulating building materials, construction practices, landscaping, and community design to enhance fire resistance. Without these codes, structures are often built with materials and designs easily ignited by wildfire, such as flammable roofing and inadequate vent screening, leading to increased property loss and damage. The lack of WUI codes also means communities may not implement necessary landscaping and spacing guidelines, resulting in enhanced fire spread within communities due to insufficient defensible space, the proximity of flammable vegetation to homes, and the clustering of buildings. This not only makes fires more difficult to control but also strains firefighting resources, as the demand for personnel, equipment, and time surges, potentially reducing the effectiveness of wildfire response efforts.

?

Furthermore, the economic and human costs associated with the absence of WUI codes are substantial. The destruction of homes and infrastructure leads to direct financial loss and long-term socioeconomic impacts on affected communities, with rebuilding and recovery efforts further straining resources. Additionally, the lack of WUI codes hinders both adaptation to the growing threat of wildfires and efforts to build community resilience, especially as climate change and other factors increase the frequency and intensity of these disasters.

?

In conclusion, the absence of WUI codes significantly magnifies the challenges faced during wildfire incidents, making communities more susceptible to wildfires, enhancing the potential for widespread fire damage, straining emergency response efforts, and elevating human and economic costs. Implementing and enforcing WUI codes are critical steps towards mitigating the impact of wildfires, safeguarding lives and property, and ensuring the resilience of communities against future fire events.

?

The Insurance Crisis - Why everyone should care if we break the system.

?

The withdrawal of insurance companies from high wildfire-risk areas is a concerning trend that underscores the broader implications of a strained system on society. This retreat is primarily due to the increasing frequency, severity, and unpredictability of wildfires, driven by factors such as climate change, urban expansion into wildfire-prone zones, and the accumulation of flammable vegetation. The financial risk to insurers from potential wildfire damage claims has surged, making it difficult for them to maintain profitability. The cost of claims has also escalated due to more structures being affected and rising reconstruction costs, further straining financial reserves. Additionally, the rising cost of reinsurance, challenges in risk assessment and pricing, regulatory and market pressures, and worrying long-term risk projections exacerbate the situation.

?

When insurance companies pull out from markets, it not only affects their business model but also has significant repercussions for homeowners, businesses, and the broader community. Reduced insurance availability or higher premiums can make it harder for people to protect their assets, potentially leading to increased financial vulnerability in the face of disaster. Furthermore, this can discourage resilient building and land use practices that would mitigate wildfire risks.

?

This situation highlights why everyone should care about the sustainability of the insurance system in the context of wildfire risks. The insurance industry plays a critical role in managing financial risk and encouraging practices that reduce vulnerability to disasters. As insurers withdraw from high-risk areas, it signals a need for comprehensive strategies to manage and mitigate wildfire risk more effectively. These strategies include improving wildfire risk assessment models, encouraging resilient building practices, and fostering collaboration among policymakers, regulators, and the insurance industry. Ensuring the affordability and availability of insurance in fire-prone areas is not only about protecting individual assets but also about preserving community resilience and stability in the face of escalating wildfire threats.

?

Redefining Strategy: Beyond Doing Everything We Can with What We Have

?

The necessity for hard choices and a broader assessment of strategies in wildfire management emerges from the recognition that historical approaches have not always been as effective as they could be. Traditionally, efforts to combat wildfires have often involved dispersing staffing and resources across various incidents, driven by a need to demonstrate action, regardless of the strategic efficacy of these measures. This approach, while well-intentioned, has been influenced by several factors that have compromised its effectiveness.

Political consequences, a lack of centralized coordination, and the experience levels of decision-makers in handling complex adaptive systems have played significant roles. Additionally, biases and fallacies, careerism, and a desire to avoid personal consequences have further contributed to a system that struggles to optimally suppress fires that need attention while also recognizing when inaction is a strategic choice. These challenges have fostered a reactive rather than strategic approach to wildfire management, often leading to the spread of resources too thin to make a significant impact on critical incidents.

?

The principle that the maximum available resources must exceed the minimum required to achieve the desired outcome is fundamental to effective wildfire management. Failing to acknowledge this principle exacerbates the problem, as resources become insufficient to address the most critical fires effectively. This scenario highlights the importance of making hard choices and implementing actions only where they are most likely to be effective. It calls for a shift towards more strategic, evidence-based decision-making that considers the broader implications of resource allocation and acknowledges the limitations of current practices.

?

Adopting this new normal requires a willingness to assess strategies comprehensively, prioritize actions based on their potential impact, and accept the political and personal consequences of these decisions. It involves cultivating a deeper understanding of complex adaptive systems, challenging existing biases, and fostering a culture that values strategic restraint as much as action. By focusing on strategic outcomes rather than immediate responses, wildfire management can become more effective, ensuring that resources are allocated where they can achieve the greatest impact and contribute to a more resilient system capable of addressing the escalating challenges of wildfire suppression.

?

Conclusion

As we look to the future, we are presented with two distinct alternatives in our approach to the wildfire crisis. The first is a path of proactive engagement, where we confront and address the complex challenges head-on, employing comprehensive strategies and fostering collaboration to build a system robust enough to manage and mitigate wildfires effectively. This future involves improving the support for our firefighting personnel, refining our incident management practices, and ensuring community preparedness and resilience against the threat of wildfires.

?

Alternatively, we face a future marked by inaction and division, where systemic shortcomings are left unaddressed, leading to more severe and frequent wildfires, placing undue strain on our communities, ecosystems, and the mental and physical well-being of our firefighting personnel.

?

The decision is stark, and the implications profound. By acknowledging the need for strategic, collective action and addressing the systemic impacts directly, we can navigate towards a future where effective wildfire management is a reality, not just an aspiration. This requires moving beyond conventional approaches, embracing innovation, and committing to a collaborative and strategic path forward. Failing to adapt not only perpetuates the crisis but also compromises the safety and resilience of our communities and natural landscapes. The current system is not up for the challenge. It is time to acknowledge that what we need is a single coordinated wildfire response system, which may be beyond the capabilities of the system. Regardless of the solution, the silencing of dissenting views and echo chambers that prevent full appreciation of the problem may be comforting to leaders who need their positions validated, but to what end?