CalFire and Their Use of Sectors.

General Discussion
#1

Cal Fire IMT 3 transitioned into command of the Dixie West Zone. Effective this morning, the following was posted (by me) on the Questions and Discussions thread under the Dixie.

There are still two zones. CalFire IMT 3 has changed the organization within their zone to something I have not seen nor heard of since Yellowstone. They stated they have done it previously and would like to institute it again. Others may have more experience in how CalFire has implemented this previously. It might be a good “General Discussion” topic to start such as “CalFire and Their Use of Sectors” because it does not belong in the middle of the Q&D thread.

Within the West Zone there will be 3 Sectors. Each Sector will be managed by a Deputy Operations Section Chief (DOSC1). Within each Sector will be one or more Operational Branches (OPBD). Under the OPBDs will be the division or groups. Divisions or Groups are managed by a Division/Group Supervisor (DIVS). So, organizationally it will be OSC1 → DOSC1s → OPBDs → DIVS.

Can someone who has experience in the use of Sectors in the adopted NIMS or FIRESCOPE ICS as a way to expand their ICS organization please chime up? This is not covered in current doctrine or taught in 300/400 or any of the other courses I have been involved in. Sectors are a term still in use in some departments who used the Fireground Command System originally developed by the late and great Alan Brunicini. However, the use of Sectors was their replacement for Divisions, not at the level being used today.

3 Likes
CA-BTU-Dixie?
#2

Are the sectors being utilized as a form of branch director? Possibly to help out with the span of control as the fire grows?

2 Likes
#3

It was used effectively last year on the August West Zone

3 Likes
#4

Nice to see CalFire adopting rotating teams. When i was on teams at the beginning it was rare to go longer than two weeks outside like 2008 nor cal lightning etc. but as the years went on longer and longer till you got stuff like Soberanes etc. and that seems like it was becoming more normal. Its good to have some fresh folks and give the much deserved initial team a breather.

6 Likes
CA-BTU-Dixie?
#5

I saw that, thank you.

#6

I agree should be moved as it would be a good discussion elsewhere…just to clarify, I was thinking it would be 3 sectors throughout the entire fire not just the west zone. He did say it worked for them in the past so hopefully they are just as successful this time as well

1 Like
#7

Being such a large incident I can see that. Was it just CF team 3 that did this or was it utilized throughout the entire complex? How was it compared to the other parts of the incident. What worked better or what was worse?

1 Like
#8

The last time I saw a sector used was many years ago and it was a sub-division of a division.

#9

Evidently they are being used for span of control mitigation, but from a hierarchical standpoint it is a “level above” an OPBD. So it is being inserted between the OSC and the OPBD.

1 Like
#10

While learning to spell ICS (years ago) I / we had to unlearn the Large Fire Organization of the Division of Forestry’s 5600 Fire Control Handbook. The term Sector was in the late ‘70s verboten…

Did not fit in ICS.

The use of the sector moniker here seems simply enough to be Deputy Ops “Westwood” etc. and would lend itself to an improved span of control and more rapid Large tactical surge (and needed support).

Deputy position, like Deputy Plans for example, are so helpful on challenging incidents.

I doubt those on this fire worked under the LFO so while the term “Sector” rubs me a bit wrong, I imagine the term and the intent will be easily adopted in the West Zone, Dixie Incident.

3 Likes
#11

So I am clear, what was used in Yellowstone was two Operations Sections, thus two OSC1s. That is what is still being taught in ICS-400. However, it is not taught in the IC course, it wasn’t in the latest 420, wasn’t in my 520, I am pretty sure it isn’t in the latest CIMC (I’ll check with my CIMC contact) and it is not in the current OSC curriculum. That is a majr disconnect. It has being realized that has not been practiced since then. But at the national level, now that DHS “owns” ICS, there is a need for doctrine to be developed to support practice. Curriculum should not dictate doctrine, but educate folks about the doctrine. That is my interest, because I am very active at that level and always looking at best practices.

#12

I dont care what they call them, it is a great use of Deputy OSCs over large amounts of land with some technical firefighting decisions being made. As far as book answers go… This fire is nearly 1/2 million acres. Looks like Team 3 is giving us some great ways to further break up command structure to get the job done on these historically large fires while keeping their span of control manageable for their folks. Set your people up for success. Kudos to them for thinking outside the box a little and fully utilizing skilled individuals to handle business.

10 Likes
#13

I see and understand your point. But in order to profit from those experiences and successes of implementation, and in order for those lessons to be learned and passed on to the next generation of incident managers and become part of the ICS doctrine, lexicon, and resulting ICS curricula, those that assist with improving the ICS do need to care about what they are called. That was the intent, was there a write up after the last successful implementation? Was there a white paper? For “all” the wildland fire discipline focused agencies to adopt it , not just IMT 3 or just Cal Fire, it would need to be discussed and approved and write ups are the first step. This could have broader national ramifications/successes and possibilities in the All-Hazards environment. It may be an excellent application; they could be sitting on a great tool, but to get others to buy in and the system to be changed, there are behind the scenes “stuff” that needs to happen to help it along. I am just asking if anyone knows or has that. What we don’t want is as IMTs transition/transfer of command with/out to another team, what happens if the the new team looks at it and scowls and states it isn’t correct ICS, and then the whole thing goes down the drain. Even good change takes work. Improving the system is like moving an iceberg.

3 Likes
#14

That was my understanding as well.

#15

Hopefully, I can shed some light on this. I am a CAL FIRE employee and have been involved with CAL FIRE IMTs and ICTs for many years. IMT3 was embedded with IMT5 on the August Complex last year with key players to assist with span of control over a large area, roughly the same area as the Dixie Fire. While this is not ICS pure, it is a great tool that will help manage this large zone. Federal IMTs have done similar span of control out of the box ideas also. On the Rim Fire, the Divisions were loaded up with STENs, HEQBs, TFLDs, etc. To help the Division manage all the resources. The Division and his Trainee broke up the Division into mini Divisions geographically. It works, but everyone in the Ops Section needs to be in the loop.

Additionally, this was not the first transition of a CAL FIRE Team to a CAL FIRE team. It first happened in 2008 on the BTU Lightning Complex. ICT9 was assigned for 35 days. We kept having to rotate ICs due to vacations and it was decided to put a Northern ICT on the fire. We transitioned with ICT5 Strebelow and it was different for sure. Even though we were in it to win it, we were tired and it was good to transition us out.

8 Likes
#16

Fyredude I had heard rumors of a previous CAL FIRE team to team transition and reached out to an “old timer” yesterday. He mentioned the BTU lightning complex, but his recollection was that team members rotated in and out and there was never a “formal” team transition like on the Dixie. I was in the infancy stage of my IMT experience, so I don’t know personally. Either way, if this is going to be the direction we go in the future, there needs to be a CAL FIRE team transition form created. We are working on the challenges, successes, and recommendations of the transition to help in making that document…

1 Like
#17

One of the projects for the USFA/DHS I am tasked with is developing model documents and best practices for the national All-Hazards IMT program. If you don’t mind, if you or anyone who has examples I’d love to see them. I have many from teams across the USA (NWCG, USFA, USCG, etc.) I can share, but in CA it is, by necessity, always a little different and usually more complex. Just PM me and we can switch to email.

2 Likes