Pacific Northwest Wildfire Coordination Group - Incident Management Team Oversight Meeting
Residence Inn, 1250 N. Anchor Way, Portland
February 19, 2009 @ 1300
Final Meeting Notes
Attendees: Paul Bell-ODF; Chris Hoff-BLM/USFS; Dennis Winkler-WWNF; Ken Snell-R6
USFS; Randy Johnson-CCFDI; Rex Reed-WADNR; Joe Shramek-DNR; John Ingrao-OSFMO;
Mariana Ruiz-Temple-OSFM; Cory Winnie-BIA-NWRO; Carl Gossard-BLM-SORO; Karen
Shimamoto-USFS; Tom Murphy-BLM-Medford; Pam Ensley-USFWS; Jim Furlong-BLM/FS;
Dave Lentz-BLM/FS; Larry Nickey-NPS; Pat Kelly-Executive Director/Facilitator; Jan MathisSORO, notetaker.
Introductions and Welcome
Paul Bell / Ken Snell
(Handout #1 – Incident Management Team Oversight meeting, 1 p)
Paul - Thanks to the OWT for putting this meeting together – we appreciate all the work that
you’ve done.
Ken expresses the reason for this meeting:

To explore the opportunities to improve in terms of coordination and linking up with the
agencies.

What is it that can make things better?

Are there any concerns or suggestions?
The case for change:
1) Better coordination among teams to help maintain existing incident management capacity.
Making sure all the teams are covered.
2) Increased integration and coordination by creating a link among the Geographic Team
Management Boards. There may be a chance for the boards to link up with policy
guidance, coordination.
3) Facilitation of discussion of approaches for promoting appropriate team size flexibility and
adaptability to potentially manage suppression, all-hazard and fire-use incidents. Team
size issue.
4) Improved opportunities to look at increased efficiencies in the areas of team and team
member needs analyses and succession planning. Can we get together and look at
successional planning and help grow team members over time.
Comments from participants:
o We have a letter from the Eastside Oregon Agency Administrators asking for us to look at
a change and free them up from managing Type 2 teams.
PNWCG/GeoBoard Meeting Feb 19, 2009 pg 1
o Have heard from Oregon ICs that they saw a need to have a joint selection process, a more
balanced approach to filling out the 4 Oregon Interagency teams.
o This agenda is very timely and needed for our AA and Geoboard meeting. There are issues
surrounding managing some of our teams that are heavily used.
o Back in 1990s, Washington had a similar model that Oregon has today. The political
climate was ripe to make them interagency. This has worked very well for them and has
made the teams much stronger across the board. There’s some opportunity to look at the 4
federal teams in Oregon to follow the same model although the climate is not right for
including ODF employees and ODF teams into the model currently.
o NW Oregon GeoBoard, works very well, have AA there to help them fill critical shortages.
It works very well and they would like to continue with that process if there is a change
made.
o In the case of the Central Oregon, ORCA, and the Blue Mountain Team. If we don’t
change the model in some way, we may lose one or more of these teams.
o ODF perspective, they have been doing a lot of integrating with training and networking.
They are making changes to a different mission (all-hazard) and have different funding
mechanism.
Report out of current situation of the teams (except Type 1)
Washington Type 2
Joe Shramek
(Handout #2 – Washington Interagency Incident Management Geographic Board, 4pp)
They have very good interaction across the agencies. Their governance document and charter
formalizes the process.
\
o Have 1 representative from each of the agencies, State, 5 Federal agencies, State Fire
Chiefs and State Fire Marshal.
o Active reps from all of these agencies
o Good cross-section and representation
Major concerns and issues:



Single statewide recruitment statewide works pretty well.
Will we be able to field 5 actual teams – sustaining this over time is a major concern.
How to provide IT support is a challenge.
AA regularly deal with these teams and don’t care if they are t1 or t4, they’re resilient and able to
succeed in different incidents.
Successes: three party arrangement. Good strong, deep group of IC. They work for the AA,
which is a diverse group in the state. The Geoboard works with both groups, the ICs and the
Agency Administrators in a coordination role.
PNWCG/GeoBoard Meeting Feb 19, 2009 pg 2
Pros and cons about formal link with the SC:
Primarily pros – the system works pretty well, there’s some natural fear of change if something
already works well, but it’s important to effectively to work well together, learn from each other.
Geoboard appoints the ICs and trainees. They create a command structure and meet to fill out the
teams. It has been working – can fill the 5, 50 person rosters in a 4 hour block of time.
Oregon DOF
Paul Bell
Operate using their Governance document, the Statewide Mob Plan and State Directives as well as
their Fire Team Handbook.
Major Issues:


Maintaining the viability of three teams. Strictly built upon agency personnel.
Work closely with State Fire Marshall’s teams, good cross-pollination with that. They also
try to participate with the Interagency teams. Have had some successes with that.

How to maintain the current system that we have, we’ll have some huge obstacles due to
funding shortages. Fire protection budgets and any activity ends up paid for by the Oregon
Forest Land Protection Fund.

In the last couple of years, they have been able to show the value and the benefits of an
interagency approach.
OR Interagency
NE Oregon/Blue Mountain Team
Dennis Winkler

Struggling with having enough numbers or a deep enough roster. 40% to 50% are AD
employees. Capacity to reach out larger than the sub-geographic area for a larger pool
would be a benefit.

Perhaps there could be a formalized process, a state-wide recruiting effort to build up the
strength and capacity of the teams.

Challenge is to fill out the teams. Like the idea of having a team with local knowledge, but
have used other teams from Oregon successfully.
Jim Furlong: When you give up local area recruitment for a statewide process, it takes longer to
mobilize a team.
ORCA
Tom Murphy
Currently have 18 units that comprise the Geoboard. 60 members on the ORCA Team – 15% are
ADs.
PNWCG/GeoBoard Meeting Feb 19, 2009 pg 3
Historically have reduced from 3 teams to 2 teams and now 1 team. This has resulted in the
current team being overused. The primaries team members are now saying they will be alternates,
leaving vacancies in the primary positions.
The team has trainees and apprenticeships
Participation has dropped off considerably.
Recruitment is a really big issue. Depth and primaries team members. They are mobilized like the
other 4 Oregon interagency teams on an area concept where the host area can choose to use their
own team before going to the Geographic Area rotation. They are in constant demand last year in
Northern California as that is part of their area.
From the perspective of the California Forests, it is fine if they come under PNWCG oversight as
long as the ORCA team is still available to them.
Pros and cons:

Could create a barrier between the CA and the Northwest.

There is some danger of losing the involvement of the local Agency Administrators.

Increase our AA involvement.
A 21 person board meets, screens and selects members. It’s become a question of: what will we
do with filling the holes?
They have a charter and operating plan.
AA perspective - it would be good to have some sense of governance to help provide focus.
Basically, they’re in “life support mode” right now.
NW Oregon IMT
Pam Ensley
o Have a good functioning GeoBoard.
o Enviable position with 100 strong listed team members. About 20% are ADs.
o Charter is current. Funding is pretty well established.
GeoBoard AA would feel that same as the other as far as homegrown, response times, ability of
AA to put fingers on their own folks. Don’t want to give that up if there’s a change in oversight.
Team perspective – worked hard to put their team together and they don’t want to lose that. But
the AAs and the Team both are open to discussion if it helps the state.

They are having a difficult time with IC and Deputy IC positions.
PNWCG/GeoBoard Meeting Feb 19, 2009 pg 4
Central Oregon IMT
Chris Hoff
GeoBoard has pretty much been non-existent. Chris re-wrote the charter and they will have their
1st meeting next week.
The team is strong in terms of logistics and operations.

Weak in plans, finance, public affairs and safety.

Challenge with personnel changes.

We strongly support the concept of PNWCG oversight.

We’re like the other teams and just hanging on.
Oregon State Fire Marshal Teams
Mariana Ruiz-Temple
We have three teams.
Geoboard met quarterly last year.

Succession and retention are the big issues that we’re having right now.

Budget issues.

A concern is how to fill our three teams. We recruit once a year, but constantly look for
recruits.
Support the oversight, however our mission is a lot different, it’s strictly structural protection. We
would have to address that.
We have a state statute and have to go through certain processes, There has to be imminent threat
involved for them to mobilize.
Oregon Fire Agencies mobilized through the State Conflagration Act require portal to portal pay.
We would like to change that. It’s a huge issue.
PNW Fire Use Team
8 core positions and 2 positions at large which expands and contract as the incident demands.

There is an Operating Plan that guides the management of that team, but it has been a
challenge putting together the team this year.

The IC has relocated, so there is a hole there. We will have to do a shared job to fill the IC
position this year.

There are also issues with finance and logistics.
Model for Fire Use Teams Nationally is changing and evolving with new policy.
1st statused nationally last year and had an assignment at COFMS.
PNWCG/GeoBoard Meeting Feb 19, 2009 pg 5
The current Geographic Board consists of North Cascades NP, Okanogan-Wenatchee NF,
Wallowa Whitman NF, Burn District BLM and SORO.
Formal link between Fire Use Team and PNWCG would be beneficial, especially at the staffing
level. PNWCG declined to manage the team 3 years ago when it was first formed because only 2
National Forests and 1 National Park were potential users. Historically the team has managed both
fire use incidents and other fires being managed with long-term suppression strategies. With the
change in Federal fire policy it is likely that the number of units wanting to use this team will
continue to increase.
A summary of the Type 2 Team situation:
1) Current model isn’t sustainable.
2) Trigger points for loss of teams may be coming.
3) Washington Geoboard bought 10 years in being able to staff 5 teams, mostly through
increased involvement of Fire Service employees.
4) Team ownership is a concern.
5) Use fatigue is an issue.
6) Will consider a link with the PNWCG SC depending on what it is.
7) There might be opportunity to do something different in the State of Oregon.
Discussion items:
 Concern for building capacity in Oregon. (opportunity)
 Better use of existing capacity. (opportunity)
 What is the need for IMTs?
 What is size and capacity of teams?
 Opportunity to determine demand.
 Opportunity to define time and assignments for each team.
 Defining how many teams are all-hazard.
Other Opportunities are:
 Leveling assignments.
 Assisting with staffing needs.
 Single recruitment process.
 Appropriate Governance
-consistency
-oversight
-leveling assignments
-recruitment/selection/staffing
(-governance of T2 vs T3 IMTs)
 Engage AA’s by Steering Committee for capacity.
Trends, usage, we need help. Links to PNWCG SC.
From a Geographic Area Perspective:
 What is the overall IMT needs assessment?
PNWCG/GeoBoard Meeting Feb 19, 2009 pg 6
Ideas of How to Build Capacity:
a. Be clear
b. Concise
c. Compelling
 Use facts to set issue up
 Layout options
 Make recommendations: get the issue in front of AAs.
Decision: Fall of 2009 for 2010 Fire Season - The 4 Oregon Interagency teams would use one
recruitment process statewide and fill from that list. Maintain the integrity of the local
GeoBoards to select the ICs.
This issue should be put on the agenda at the Forest Service/BLM AA meeting that’s coming up
in April 2009.
To implement the recruiting process:
 Each GeoBoard to assign a representative to work on the process.
A good place to codify this would be in the OWT Charter.
 Action: Add a statement in the OWT Charter that they have the oversight to coordinate
and facilitate the process.

Representatives of the 4 teams and the OWT will define the process similar to what is used
for the National IMTs.
 Action: OWT will compose a letter from PNWCG SC Chair to the 4 Geoboards:
a. Do you support it?
b. How do you propose to proceed?
c. Utilize OWT to do it.
 Action: This should be added into our Program of Work under building capacity.
Letter from PNWCG to be sent to these folks:
MJ Harvey Rogue-River Forest
Dallas Emch, FS Eugene
Dennis Winkler
Chris Hoff
Closing Remarks:
Paul Bell
Appreciate everyone coming and discussing the issues.
Adjourned at 1700 hrs.
Handouts
Handout #1 – Incident Management Team Oversight meeting, 1 p
Handout #2 – Washington Interagency Incident Management Geographic Board, 4 pp
PNWCG/GeoBoard Meeting Feb 19, 2009 pg 7