Okay, what’s the deal with Forestry Technicians? Why am I not calling them Firefighters? Well, because technically federal employees are not classified as Wildland Firefighters (there is a tiny segment of the federal workforce who are structural firefighters). They’re Forestry Technicians, Range Technicians (mostly with the Bureau of Land Management), Equipment Operators, and Administrative Specialists. (In the federal government EVERY position falls within a “series” that determines a lot of things including qualification requirements and pay.) Yep. Now, the federal firefighting agencies (US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs) will blame the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Sure. Okay, let’s go with that for now.
According to OPM, the federal firefighter series (0081) excludes wildland firefighters, which are defined as, “Fire control, suppression, and related duties incidental to forestry or range management work.” Pretty much any position that is involved in “natural resources” is in the 400 series. Some require a college degree (i.e., 460 is a Forester, 401 is a General Biologist, 408 is an Ecologist) and some don’t (i.e., 462 is a Forestry Technician, 455 is a Range Technician). For GS-11 and above “fire” positions the series is 300 “General Administrative, Clerical, and Office Services.” Yes, a Fire Staff Officer, a Fire Management Officer, a Division Chief, are all “Administrative Specialists.” Now, some of the boots-on-the-ground who think people like me are simply paper pushers driving a desk may agree with this. However, we are required to have operational fire qualifications.
In my 30+ years with the US Forest Service (USFS) I’ve been a 460 (Forester), a 401 (General Biologist), a 462 (Forestry Technician) and a 301 (Miscellaneous Administrator) all while working in wildland fire as my primary job.
This “battle” with job series has been going on for some time. After the South Canyon Fire tragedy it was decided at the top by the federal fire management agencies (listed above) that “wildland fire” positions needed to have incident qualification requirements associated with each position. They are known as the Interagency Fire Program Management Standards (IFPM), and they were proposed in 2004, ten years after South Canyon. I don’t think most people had issue with this part of IFPM. If you were holding a District Fire Management Officer (DFMO or Division Chief) position on a highly complex district then you should be qualified as a Division Group Supervisor and Type 2 Burn Boss at a minimum. But they also decided that the management positions (at the DFMO/Assistant FMO level and higher) should have a four-year natural resources degree (or equivalent) because these positions would be classified as 401 (General Biologist). In other words, if you wanted to move from an Engine Captain or Hotshot Superintendent position into management you would need a college degree.
I’m not opposed to education. I’m actually a big fan of education. I have a BS in Forestry that I’m pretty proud of. But to make a 40 or 50-year-old person who has proven they are a good firefighter and manager go back and get the equivalent of a college degree to keep their current position seemed ludicrous. The absolute best “Fire Ecologist” I’ve worked with in my 30 year career was a District AFMO whose formal education didn’t go beyond high school. There was talk of “professionalizing” our fire workforce. I don’t think a damn college degree has any bearing on how “professional” a fire organization is. The agencies reached out to a few universities to develop “continuing education” programs specifically aimed at wildland firefighters who needed this requirement. People in current positions that would become 401 had priority, and Uncle Sam foot the bill. For people who aspired to these positions they could get in as well after applying. And as many people that went through these programs it still wasn’t enough to fill the “pipeline” with qualified employees.
The consternation in the Forest Service over appropriate job series for wildland “firefighters” began in 2004 with the plan to implement IFPM. Go here to see the numerous memos, letters, and FAQs regarding series. In a nutshell, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and OPM did audits in 2008 and 2009. OIG was concerned about the Forest Service’s ability to sustain a viable recruitment pool of fire management candidates for the GS-401 series (I’ve searched high and low for the audit/report and management alert and cannot locate them). It was a valid concern.
As a follow up to a 2008 email instructing the agency to “stand down” in implementing wildland fire positions in the 401 series, Forest Service Chief Gail Kimball penned a letter on May 29, 2009 referring to the OIG audit and providing interim guidance on job series, including suspension of the 401 job series. The letter also stated, “The Forest Service will be working with the Department to evaluate the options of establishing two new job series [emphasis added] to describe wildland fire management work. One series would be a technical wildland fire management series. The technical series would blend the knowledge, skills and abilities required of modern wildland fire suppression and natural resource management. The second series would be a professional wildland fire management series that provides leadership and management for wildland fire management programs in a natural resource organization. These job series would replace the existing 462 and 401 series currently in use for fire positions within the Agency.”
The USFS convened a “summit” consisting of top Fire and Aviation Management employees, Human Resources Management, and the National Federation of Federal Employees (union) to develop a plan to “seek immediate near-term and long-term solutions.”
On July 8, 2011, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell rescinded former Chief Kimball’s letter with this letter. It stated, “The outcome of the meeting was a long-term strategy to pursue the creation of a unique occupational series for wildland fire management [emphasis added] that is consistent with the action item in the agency’s Cultural Transformation Plan. However, the creation of a new occupational series is likely to require significant effort and time.” He laid out an interim strategy that designated positions that would remain in the 462 Forestry Technician series (“firefighting and dispatch”) and the 401 series (“IFPM fuels positions”). The letter then stated, “Fire management positions at the GS-09 and above grade levels that are primarily administrative and managerial in nature are in the process of being reclassified in the GS-0301, Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series.”
That letter was the last we formally heard about “a unique occupational series for wildland fire management.” We’ve been told a lot of things informally. The unions has tried to get elected officials in on the fight to develop a new series, but every time it seems there’s a bit of traction gained it goes nowhere.
I do want to acknowledge that the 455 Range Technician series is also an issue, primarily in the BLM, which is in the Department of Interior (DOI). I can’t tell you what the internal discussions have been in the DOI agencies, but it’s frustrating that the federal land management agencies who engage in fire management can’t seem to get in alignment with the US Forest Service, and vice versa. This is just as important of a discussion; I just don’t have the information and experience with the 455 series in DOI.
Why does this matter? Well, for one thing, series are connected to pay. There are some series in the federal government that receive a higher salary rate on the General Schedule scale (professional engineers, for example, because the pay in the private sector is so much higher). It’s Uncle Sam’s way of sweetening the pot in order to better recruit qualified and high performing employees who would make more in the private sector.
Entry level Forestry Technicians are at the GS-3 level. Go here for the General Schedule pay table. There is a “base”, and then there are higher rates for localities that meet the criteria (high cost of living and large enough population, for example Portland, OR and the greater Denver, CO area). A first year GS-3 Forestry Technician makes $11.49/hour. The California minimum wage rate, which is a state rate so the Federal Government doesn’t have to comply, is $12.00/hour (set to incrementally increase to $15.00 by 2022). I’m not knocking on the work millions of Californians do for minimum wage. But how many people who make minimum wage in the CA service industry can get killed by a falling tree or a raging wildfire in the scope of their employment? As a comparison an entry level wildland firefighter for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFire) makes 50% more. This holds generally true for all federal Forestry Technician and administrative positions – CALFire employees make double what the feds make. For federal Forestry Technicians there is enormous pressure to get as many fire assignments and as many hours as one can during fire season in order to supplement the often “meager” base salaries. Because a large segment of these Forestry Technicians are “seasonal” employees this means they are only guaranteed work for six or nine months out of the year.
Those of us in “fire” positions are required to meet not just the qualification requirements but physical fitness requirements as well. It’s a condition of our employment. Hotshots, smokejumpers, helitack all have to meet even higher standards of physical fitness and technical proficiencies. And wildland fighting fire is hard on the body.
A unique occupational series for federal wildland firefighting positions could mean a higher rate than the base GS rates (such as engineers).
But it’s not just about the money. It’s about so much more. It’s about acknowledging the inherent risks associated with wildland firefighting. And I’m not only referring to the physical risks like falling trees, rolling boulders, raging fires, chainsaw accidents, and vehicle mishaps. The USFS has gotten better about acknowledging the environmental dangers associated with fighting fire. But this is also about acknowledging the personal, emotional toll this work takes on us and our families. Structural firefighters might sleep at their fire station when they’re on a shift (typically 3-4 nights away from home per week), but federal Forestry Technicians who fight fire can and will be dispatched anywhere in the country (and sometimes to Australia or Canada) for 14 to 21 days, excluding travel. Then a couple days off and right back out (and sometimes those days “off” are done at incident, not at home). In a busy fire season (and they’re getting busier and busier) a Forestry Technician on an engine or hand crew, a smokejumper or helitack, could spend as little as 16 days at home in a four-month period (“peak” fire season in the West). We miss birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, funerals and the simple day-to-day interactions with our families and friends. A lot of spouses get tired of living “alone” and raising children as to what amounts to being a “single” parent for a good part of the year. And while official statistics on divorce rates are lacking, subject matter experts believe the rate for Forestry Technicians who fight fire is considerably higher than the national average.
And let’s talk about mental health. While no one keeps official records, it’s thought by mental health professionals and other subject matter experts that the suicide rate for Forestry Technicians engaged in wildland firefighting is significantly higher than other professions and is an indicator of a mental health crisis. One known research study published in 2018 was done with a small number of participants and showed staggering findings: 55% of wildland firefighters compared to 32% of non-wildland firefighters reported clinically significant suicidal symptoms. The reasons are numerous – challenges of balancing family life with work; being laid off in the dark, often cold months and losing the “family” support unit of one’s engine crew or hand crew (the bonds are strong in fire), called “thwarted belongingness” by psychologists; financial challenges in the off-season; exposure to traumatic events associated with the job. The Employee Assistance Program, EAP, has some great services, however the maximum number of free visits to a mental health professional varies from three to six. And the contractors don’t often have trauma-trained clinicians. It’s hard enough to find someone who works with law enforcement or structural firefighters, but someone who understands wildland firefighting is about as rare as a unicorn. Rural communities, of which a lot of our national forests are part, and where many Forestry Technicians live year-round, often will have no clinicians at all that are contracted with EAP. Go here to read just one story of this struggle.
Again, why does this matter? A unique occupational series for federal wildland firefighting positions means an acknowledgement of the work we do and the sacrifices we (and often our families) make. My agency won’t officially acknowledge us as Wildland Firefighters. Many of us feel they only do so when it’s convenient or cool or sexy to do so: when the agency needs “heroes” and not just Forestry Technicians. As the COVID-19 pandemic hit and we started talking about contracting the disease while in official capacity and how to “prove” that to the Officer of Worker’s Compensation Program (OWCP), the USFS had an opportunity to officially state to the OWCP that Forestry Technicians who fight fire are “first responders.” The agency chose not to. But during the memorial for a Forestry Technician Hotshot who recently died on the fireline, the Chief of the Forest Service referred to him numerous times as a “firefighter.” Managers at the highest levels of the USDA Forest Service are quick to refer to us as “wildland firefighters” when we die in the line of duty. It’s good PR.
As former Chief Tidwell wrote in his 2011 letter that developing a unique series would require “significant effort and time.” It’s been NINE YEARS. To be fair, the OPM oversees an incredibly archaic classification system that will need a congressional mandate to update. And the OPM is one of the few federal agencies that actually makes a profit off other agencies by charging them to do the work no other agency is allowed to do. Meaning, we are required by law to use the OPM (and they charge us money to do the work). But just think what could happen if ALL the federal land management agencies who manage wildland fire got together to work with OPM to develop a unique wildland firefighter series. I just cannot imagine real change would take another nine years to happen.
Morale is extremely low in the wildland fire community. These Forestry and Range Technicians feel ignored, unappreciated, misunderstood, and disregarded. It’s a testament to the fortitude and drive of the people doing this dangerous, yet necessary work that they continue year-in and year-out to labor with an overall positive spirit and high level of determination, despite the shitty pay, lack of recognition, and disrespect. These folks are largely smart, creative, dedicated, critical-thinking problem-solvers who love the land.
The Wildland Fire Leadership Values are Duty, Integrity and Respect. Duty — leaders valuing their jobs; Integrity – leaders valuing themselves; Respect – leaders valuing their coworkers. It’s time the top managers of the USDA Forest Service, and the other agencies, show proper respect of valuing these hard-working women and men by honoring them, us, as Wildland Firefighters:
- Establish a unique wildland firefighting job series with appropriate living wage and commensurate benefits.
- Provide better mental health services that acknowledge the unique work and sacrifices of wildland firefighters.
If you want to support this effort please go to the Grassroots Wildland Firefighter Committee to see a lot of ways you can help. Go here to see a new bill H.R. 8170 – Wildland Firefighter Recognition Act. Contact your representative if you support it. We need your help.
DISCLAIMER: In no way here do I officially represent the USDA Forest Service or any other federal agency. I have links to public documents and have attempted to present as many facts as I can. The rest of the essay is my opinion and does not reflect any official stance by any of the federal land management agencies who engage in wildland fire management.