Works “ok” if zoned. Otherwise not great. Every team is different and a lot of heavy hitters on all sides can make for complex discussions.
3 Likes
I am on a team and have done it both ways. On the Mendocino Complex it didn’t work well. To many conflicting priorities and I hate to say it egos! For example when we walked out of a planning meeting one of the OSC’s pulled his team aside and said “now this is what we are really going to do”! The teams wanted to zone but the powers that be wanted us to merge.
On the other hand I have been on others where it worked, not perfect but we were able to check our differences and egos at the door. The Shelly was a good example.
I think it’s easier if both teams come in early if not the same time as compared to a team that has been there for a bit and is in a rythm.
7 Likes
I have been on both Calfire Teams and Fed Interagency Teams. The challenges with blending:
- Different priorities when dealing with the “values at risk”.
- Different processes for the “planning P”. Each has their reasons for their own processes but difficult to change processes when the teams have been working the same way for many years with proven results.
I believe it would work better if the teams could work together before an incident (training) and agree to processes that they could negotiate when not currently working.
Advantages:
- Sharing resources
- Information sharing in real time
- Learning different ways to solve problems
I’m sure there are many other challenges and advantages, but this is just my opinion.
5 Likes
It is an interesting question because the IC’s seem to set the tone and culture of the team, but the opposite can also true, the IC’s tone/methodology tended to be shaped by the team itself if the C&GS stays largely intact from year to year.
Teams (at least the NWCG sponsored teams I worked on) seem to have wider variations of leadership style that can make it difficult for IMTs to work together. Differences in ego’s, servant-leadership style (if any), training, and their particular planning process routines can cause friction when they are forced together. I have been on couple of incidents where it worked well, but lots more where rough spots with different dynamics of the teams were a challenge. Working as a “relief” in a C&G position is an interesting experience as you get to see many different styles across the country. When the planning process can/has been altered by a team like skipping using any 215 but just using 204’s, when IMTs state they have two equal OSCs (field and planning) in place of the accepted OSC with a Deputy OSC handling the planning interface, and other variants of ICS and process, it can be challenging to assimilate when under the pressures IMTs face. Many of those issues can be mitigated by creating or turning it into a complex and zoning the incident. However, the creators need to be purposeful and realistic about the boundaries – and very specific when there are active air operations.
2 Likes
You know, I’m not seeing that on Inciweb. They show a USFS T-3 team in charge…
3 Likes
| INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAMS ASSIGNED IN SOUTH OPS | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team Name | Type | Incident | |||||||||||||
| FDNY IMT | Type 3 | CA-SNF-Garnet-001684 |
8 Likes
Typical conflicting information by the govt. Interesting that they call it a t-3 as FDNY is all risk akin to a type 1 from what I gather. Stole out last roll…
4 Likes
Other sources here have said FDNY has both a T-1 and a T3 team.
4 Likes
Not sure where the conflicting info lies, but the FDNY team is a type 3 team. The “govt” is really just people, and people make mistakes. Even when it comes to the status of an incident. And being an all hazard team doesnt make you a type 1 team. There are several all hazard teams in California that are rostered and in the system as type 3 teams. Regardless, SNF-Garnet is under the management of a type 3 team and will be that way for a bit longer due to the ongoing complexity, even if the primary focus has shifted to suppresion repair.
9 Likes
Usually I don’t get too involved with lengthy discussions, but just to add some clarification here’s a bit more about the FDNY team.
I have served with them before and they are definitely a type3 all hazard team. When they take a fed wildfire they “boost” the team with a minimum of three NWCG qualified personnel in the C/G positions. This is a requirement for them to take a wildfire.
9 Likes
If we want to further the discussion we could probably open a new thread to discuss the difference between team Types, i.e. 3, 2, 1, and Complex and if a team is considered as a All-Hazards team or a disciple focused team. The FDNY started many years ago under the All-Hazards umbrella. I believe they have close to 300 currently rostered. Many of their members have taken and passed 420, and then either CIMC, 520, or AAIMS and therefor are qualified at the Type 1 level. When responding to a request that requires endorsements, like the NWCG does for their discipline focused wildland fire teams, then they do exactly what was previously stated, swap out the positions requiring a discipline specific (in this case NWCG) endorsement with personnel who have them and at the required complexity qualifications (3,2,1). When they do that they are completely in line and compliant. The team has excellent depth and excellent experience and can handle all complexity types and either All-Hazards or several types of discipline focused team requests.
4 Likes
Team discussion moved to this thread
Where does Complex work in the 1,2,3?
Here is the short version. If this isn’t in-depth enough I can post the more detailed response.
The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) provides a formalized system for members to agree upon standards of training, equipment, aircraft, suppression priorities, and other operational areas of the participating agencies.
In an effort to resolve staffing issues on wildland fires, the NWCG Executive Board agreed that they would drop Type 2 and Type 1 IMT designations and re-title them (transition to) Complex Incident Management Teams, or CIMTs. They would bring the current Type 2 members that were typed (not all IMT positions are) up to the Type 1 level (PTBs, training, and/or training assignments or evaluations), but would then combine the personnel and call them CIMTs. So, in the wildland fire world of NWCG they do not have Type 1 or Type 2 IMTS, only Type 3 and CIMTs. That does not eliminate or alter the national use of complexity levels 1 or 2 or affect anything other than what the NWCG members do – specifically wildland fire. States and other agencies (federal, state, or local) can and still do use Type 1 and 2. The NWCG sets standards for only the NWCG members and only if the member agency agrees.
7 Likes
Great description Sir.
It was just this past spring CAL FIRE IMT’s became duel compliant archiving both the Type 1 and Complex Incident Management Team Designation. Each PTB for C&G was updated to include both.
2 Likes
@Ehoss84
…And I hope/trust that your revised PQR’s (CalFire or CICCS) include a complete crosswalk to enable continuance of Currency of both CIMT and Type 1/2 positions when you perform either, like below. I’ve seen a couple where it was accidentally made into a one-way currency street. Agencies that deploy to non-NWCG managed requests in addition to NWCG need to ensure both sides are treated equally to simplify Non-NWCG interoperability like EMAC.
310-1 THAT MAINTAIN CURRENCY FOR OSCC
Operations Section Chief Type 1 (OSC1)
Operations Section Chief Type 2 (OSC2)
OSCC MAINTAINS CURRENCY FOR THESE 310-1 POSITIONS
Operations Section Chief Type 1 (OSC1)
Operations Section Chief Type 2 (OSC2)
3 Likes
As I understand it. The Tyoe 1 NWCG is the “highest” level of training and the CIMT was a way to “bridge” Type 1 & Type 2.
The PTB’s had to be updated to include the CIMT required language that is different than the
Type 1 All-Hazard / All-Risk Language. I know in California OSFM SFT still allows for
S-330 Strike Team Leader
&
S-330 Strike Team Leader All Risk. The primary difference is the instructor’s level of training and certification. All-Risk can teach/certify either. But STEN can only teach the wildland specific course. This is due to OSFM/SFT & CICCS/FIRESCIPE Requiring additional training. Additionally, the All-Risk course for LG through CICCS requires a RT-330 class every 3 years to maintain currencies for new things like OES MARS, eShift Tickets, MOU’s etc. Its an 8hr class similar to annual RT-130.
I believe CIMT & Type 1 IMT is similar.
Finally, i believe DHS/FEMA still only recognize TYPE 1 IMT and not the CIMT level of training(as of April 2025 anyways)
2 Likes
Any new info RE: R5 CIMTs , maybe less teams but going to 100 person rosters ?
100 people to ensure a full roster when dispatched? I’ve seen a lot of “fully staffed” teams struggle to fill the roster when dispatched.
1 Like
Wonder why some CWCG parent members want to cut two California interagency teams? For full disclosure to those who depend on these IMTs we should be told the opinion of each represented agency regarding this issue.
If it’s because we need a 100 people for a 100 acre fire, then we can only ask where has all this gone wrong.
5 Likes