Fire today ManagementVolume 61 ¥ No. 4 ¥ Fall 2001
FIRE POLICY UPDATE
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Fire Management Today is published by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Department.
Fire Management Today is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, at:Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: 202-512-1800 Fax: 202-512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
Fire Management Today is available on the World Wide Web at
Ann Veneman, Secretary April J. Baily U.S. Department of Agriculture General Manager
Dale Bosworth, Chief Robert H. “Hutch” Brown, Ph.D. Forest Service Managing Editor
Jerry Williams, Director Madelyn Dillon Fire and Aviation Management Editor
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Disclaimer: The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement of any product or service by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Individual authors are responsible for the technical accuracy of the material presented in Fire Management Today.
2 Fire Management Today Fire today Management Volume 61 ¥ No. 4 ¥ Fall 2001
On the Cover: CONTENTS Policy Initiatives in Wildland Fire Management ...... 4 Hutch Brown Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy ...... 7 Executive Summary Tabular Crosswalk Between the 1995 and 2001 Federal Fire Policies ...... 11 A hand crew utilizes a rocky An Agency Strategy for Fire Management ...... 14 area for additional safety Executive Summary and fireline effectiveness. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Our first priority, recon- Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy ...... 16 firmed by the 2001 Federal Executive Summary Fire Policy (see the executive summary on page 7), is Reducing Fire Danger: Is Current Policy on Course? .. 18 firefighter and public safety. Hutch Brown Photo: Ravi Miro Fry, USDA Fires 2000: Fact vs. Fiction ...... 26 Forest Service, Boise Na- Stephen W. Barrett tional Forest, Boise, ID. A Consistent Wildland Fire Risk Terminology Is Needed! ...... 28 Andreas Bachmann and Britta Allgöwer Fighting the Pumpkin Fire—Indirect Attack and Aerial Ignition ...... 34 Allen Farnsworth Six National Fire Use Awards Presented for The FIRE 21 symbol (shown below and on the cover) stands for the safe and effective use of 1998 and 1999 ...... 39 wildland fire, now and throughout the 21st Dave Bunnell century. Its shape represents the fire triangle (oxygen, heat, and fuel). The three outer red triangles represent the basic functions of The 1910 Fires: A New Book by Stephen J. Pyne ..... 45 wildland fire organizations (planning, operations, Hutch Brown and aviation management), and the three critical aspects of wildland fire management (prevention, suppression, and prescription). The black interior First Annual Photo Contest (Correction) ...... 48 represents land affected by fire; the emerging green points symbolize the growth, restoration, and sustainability associated with fire-adapted ecosystems. The flame represents fire itself as an SHORT FEATURES ever-present force in nature. For more informa- tion on FIRE 21 and the science, research, and innovative thinking behind it, contact Mike Guidelines for Contributors...... 44 Apicello, National Interagency Fire Center, 208-387-5460. Websites on Fire...... 47 Before Helicopters: Blimps for Wildland Firefighting? ...... 50 Hutch Brown Annual Photo Contest ...... 51 Firefighter and public safety is our first priority.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 3 POLICY INITIATIVES IN WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Hutch Brown
ires in recent decades have grown in size and severity on Severe fire seasons and evolving insights F national forest lands. In 1987, into land and resource management have for only the first time since 1919, generated a series of recent initiatives fires burned more than a million acres (400,000 ha) on the National for wildland fire management. Forest System. More than a million acres burned again in 1988, 1994, tee of Scientists (COS 1999), the Agency Strategy for Fire Manage- and 1996. In 2000, more than 2 promulgated rule confirms the ment, a report addressing major million acres (800,000 ha) burned. principle of ecological, social, and long-term issues such as a Suppression costs have climbed economic sustainability.* Land and declining workforce and the grow- accordingly, reaching a record $1.6 resource management are to be ing number of large fires (S&PF billion across all ownerships in based on cooperatively developed 2000). The report recommends 2000 (ACPP 2000). landscape-level goals following restructuring the fire organization, Planning Revisions scientific regional assessments. partly for “improved integration of fire into ecosystem management, The trend toward larger fires and 2001 Federal Fire Policy. The planning, and decisions.” higher costs became clear in 1994, 2000 Cerro Grande Fire,** an generating a series of reports under escaped prescribed burn that spread the rubric FIRE 21 (see sidebar). to Los Alamos, NM, triggered a New research and insights have review of fire policy. The findings generated a second series of reports, strengthened the 1995 Federal Fire linked to the Forest Service’s Policy (NWCG 1995), replacing it in strategic direction for land and January 2001 with a new inter- resource management planning. agency policy for managing wild- land fire (NWCG 2001). The new Strategic Direction. The National policy calls for using “the full range Forest Management Act of 1976 of fire management activities … to requires the Forest Service to achieve ecosystem sustainability,” establish a rule to guide local including fire use. The policy managers in preparing land and stresses the need to complete or resource management plans for the revise fire management plans that National Forest System. The first are “more effectively and directly” planning rule, adopted in 1982, was integrated “with other natural due for revision by the 1990s. After resource goals.” more than 10 years of preparation, a new planning rule was proposed in Agency Strategy. In January 2000, October 1999 and promulgated in the Forest Service released An December 2000 after extensive public hearings. Based on a March The Rabbit Creek Fire, part of the Idaho 1999 report by the second Commit- City Complex on Idaho’s Boise National *Although the new rule was under review as this issue Forest in 1994. The fire was enormous, went to print, its implications for fire management are likely to remain about the same. burning 146,400 acres (59,250 ha) in 73 Hutch Brown is the managing editor of Fire days. Photo: Karen Wattenmaker, USDA ** For more on the Cerro Grande Fire, see Jim Paxon, Management Today, USDA Forest Service, “‘Remember Los Alamos’: The Cerro Grande Fire,” Fire Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Management Today 60(4): 9–14. Boise, ID, 1994.
4 Fire Management Today Cohesive Strategy. In October The 2001 Federal Fire Policy calls for using 2000, the Forest Service released Protecting People and Sustaining “the full range of fire management activities … Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosys- to achieve ecosystem sustainability.” tems: A Cohesive Strategy (F&AM 2000a) in response to a report to Congress by the General Account- ing Office (GAO 1999). Building on the Agency Strategy, the Cohesive FIRE 21 Strategy calls for “sustaining natural resources in short-interval, FIRE 21 was conceived by the The FIRE 21 symbol reflects the fire-adapted ecosystems” through USDA Forest Service to capture Forest Service’s ongoing commit- adaptive management. The report the synergy among the reports ment to the safe and prudent use recommends specific actions for that emerged following the 1994 of fire in managing natural restoring and maintaining fire- fire season.* In that year, 34 resources in the 21st century. It adapted ecosystems, including fire firefighters perished, by far the was developed in 1996 by Michael use. most in any single fire season G. Apicello and Rodney C. Kind- since 1990. In addition, some lund, USDA Forest Service. National Fire Plan. In September 1.4 million acres (570,000 ha) 2000, the Secretaries of Agriculture burned on the national forests The symbol’s overall shape repre- and the Interior released Managing and grasslands, only the third sents the fire triangle—the com- the Impact of Wildfires on Commu- time since 1919 that more than a bination of oxygen, fuel, and heat nities and the Environment: A million acres had burned on the needed to generate fire. The three Report to the President in Response National Forest System. outer red triangles stand for the to the Wildfires of 2000 (USDA/ basic functions of the Forest Ser- USDI 2000). The report and associ- FIRE 21 projected a new direc- vice’s fire organization: planning, ated materials are known as the tion for Forest Service wildland operations, and aviation. The National Fire Plan. In fiscal year fire management in the 21st triangles point inward to the base 2001, Congress funded the National century, including these goals: of the flame, representing the Fire Plan, including $1.1 billion for three faces of fire management: the Forest Service. The plan is a •Improving firefighter and prevention, suppression, and blueprint for implementing the public safety; prescription. Agency Strategy based on the 2001 • Restoring, maintaining, and Federal Fire Policy, taking actions sustaining ecosystem function The black interior symbolizes recommended in the Cohesive for healthier forest ecosystems; land affected by fire. The three Strategy. The plan calls for: • Increasing accountability at all emerging green tips represent agency levels; growth, restoration, and • Providing sufficient firefighting • Enacting a safe and cost- sustainability of fire-adapted resources for the future; effective Fire and Aviation ecosystems. The flame, the fire • Rebuilding communities and Management program; and within, reminds us that fire is an rehabilitating fire-damaged • Integrating wildland fire ever-present force in nature. The ecosystems; management concerns FIRE 21 inscription stands for • Reducing fuels in wildlands and the role of fire into the Forest Service’s commit- at risk from uncharacteristic all agency resource ment to the safe and fire effects, especially near management prudent use of fire in all communities; programs. fire management •Working with local residents to activities. reduce fire risk and improve fire protection; and • Ensuring accountability. * See Michael G. Apicello, “FIRE 21—Fire Management in the 21st Century,” Fire Manage- ment Notes 56(3): 4–5.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 5 Large-Fire Costs. A report released The new initiatives are in 2000 by the Forest Service’s Strategic Overview of Large Fire interconnected in a planning hierarchy Costs Team assessed the factors for wildland fire management on contributing to rising suppression the National Forest System. costs and made recommendations (F&AM 2000b).* COS (Committee of Scientists). 1999. NWCG (National Wildfire Coordinating Focus on Results Sustaining the people’s lands: Recom- Group). 1995. Federal wildland fire mendations for the stewardship of the management policy and program review. The new initiatives are intercon- national forests and grasslands into the Boise, ID: National Interagency Fire nected in a planning hierarchy for next century. Washington, DC: U.S. Center. Department of Agriculture. NWCG 2001. Review and update of the 1995 wildland fire management on the F&AM. (Fire and Aviation Management). Federal wildland fire management policy. National Forest System. The 2000a. Protecting people and sustaining Boise, ID: National Interagency Fire agency’s strategic direction outlines resources in fire-adapted ecosystems: A Center. objectives for healthy lands and cohesive strategy. Washington, DC: USDA S&PF (State and Private Forestry). 2000. An Forest Service. [Website
As always, the challenge will be to translate policy directives and strategic initiatives into cost- effective, on-the-ground results. The National Fire Plan outlines programs for working with local communities to improve fire protection and restore ecosystem health. For the executive summary of the National Fire Plan, see Fire Management Today 61(2): 9–11. Prescribed fire on Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest. From 1992 to 1998, the number of fuels treatments on the National Forest System, including prescribed fire and References thinning, more than quadrupled to about 1.5 million acres (600,000 ha) per year (F&AM 2000). The National Fire Plan calls for even more fuels treatments. Photo: USDA Forest ACPP (Andrus Center for Public Policy). Service, 1991. 2000. The fires next time. Conference report: The Fires Next Time; 7 Dec 2000; Boise, ID. Boise, ID: ACPP and The Idaho Statesman.
* For more on large fire costs, see the related articles in Fire Management Today 61(3).
6 Fire Management Today REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE 1995 FEDERAL WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) Editor’s note: On June 27, 2000, following the Cerro Grande Fire (an escaped prescribed burn) near Los Alamos, NM,* the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior requested a comprehensive review of the interagency wildland fire management policy established in 1995. The review and update were released in January 2001. The executive summary is reprinted here, lightly edited. The full report is posted on the World Wide Web at
he Interagency Federal Wild- land Fire Policy Review Work- The 1995 Federal Fire Policy T ing Group, at the direction of is generally sound and continues to provide the Secretaries of the Interior and a solid foundation for wildland fire management. Agriculture, reviewed the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review and its implemented in all applicable integrate programs and disciplines, implementation. The Working Federal agencies in a collaborative, require interagency collaboration, Group found that the policy is coordinated, and integrated fashion emphasize the natural ecological generally sound and continues to as quickly as possible. role of fire, and contribute to provide a solid foundation for ecosystem sustainability. wildland fire management activities In summary, the Working Group and for natural resources manage- finds and recommends that Federal The 2001 Federal Fire Policy ment activities of the Federal fire management activities and contained in this report replaces the Government. programs are to provide for 1995 Federal Fire Policy. It should firefighter and public safety, protect be adopted by all Federal agencies In this Review and Update of the and enhance land management with fire-management-related 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Man- objectives and human welfare, programs and activities, as appro- agement Policy, the Working Group recommends selected changes and additions to the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy to clarify purpose and intent and to address issues not fully covered in 1995.
The Working Group further found that implementation of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy remains incom- plete in many areas, especially those that involve collaboration, coordi- nation, and integration across agency jurisdictions and across different disciplines. The Working Group recommends a number of strategic implementation actions to ensure that Federal wildland fire management policy is successfully Water drop on the May 2000 Cerro Grande Fire in Santa Clara Canyon near Los Alamos, NM. The fire, an escaped prescribed burn, triggered a comprehensive Federal fire policy * See Jim Paxon, “‘Remember Los Alamos’: The Cerro review, resulting in the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. Photo: W.R. Fortini, Jr., USDA Forest Grande Fire,” Fire Management Today 60(4): 9–14. Service, Cibola National Forest, Mountainair Ranger District, Mountainair, NM, 2000.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 7 priate, through directives, manuals, As a result of fire exclusion, handbooks, and other documents. the condition of fire-adapted ecosystems Subsequent to the initiation of this continues to deteriorate. Review and Update, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture prepared a report, Managing the Background • Review the implementation status Impact of Wildfires on Communi- The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy. ties and the Environment: A Report Management Policy and Program • Address specific issues related to to the President in Response to the Review produced the first single interagency coordination, coop- Wildfires of 2000,* and the Con- comprehensive Federal fire policy eration, availability, and use of gress provided substantial new for the Departments of the Interior contingency resources. appropriations and guidance in the and Agriculture. That review was • Provide recommendations to the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior and stimulated by the 1994 fire season, Secretaries for strengthening the Related Agencies Appropriations with its 34 fatalities, and growing organizational structure of Act. The activities resulting from recognition of fire problems caused wildland fire management pro- the Secretaries’ report and the by fuel accumulation. The resulting grams to ensure effective imple- congressional action are generally 1995 Federal Fire Policy recog- mentation of a cohesive Federal known as the National Fire Plan. nized, for the first time, the essen- wildland fire policy. Although this Review and Update tial role of fire in maintaining • Provide any other recommenda- supports and complements the natural systems. tions that would improve Federal National Fire Plan, the two efforts wildland fire management pro- are different. This Review and In the aftermath of the escape of the grams. Update, with its findings and Cerro Grande Prescribed Fire in • Recommend a management recommendations, provides a broad May 2000, the Secretaries of the structure for completing imple- philosophical and policy foundation Interior and Agriculture requested a mentation of the recommenda- for Federal agency fire management review of the 1995 Federal Fire tions. programs and activities, including Policy and its implementation. They those conducted under the National directed the Working Group to: Fire Plan. In contrast, the National Fire Plan and similar interagency activities focus on operational and implementation activities. A major feature of the National Fire Plan is the interagency (especially between Federal and non-Federal entities) aspect of risk reduction planning and implementation. In summary, the 2001 Federal Fire Policy con- tained in this report is focused on internal Federal agency strategic direction for a broad range of fire- management-related activities, whereas the National Fire Plan is a more narrowly focused and tactical undertaking involving both Federal and non-Federal entities.
The Cerro Grande Fire approaching an incident command post. Thousands were safely evacuated from in and around Los Alamos, NM; no injuries resulted from the fire. Under the 2001 Federal Fire Policy, firefighter and public safety remains our first priority. Photo: * For the executive summary of the report to the President associated with the National Fire Plan, see Fire W.R. Fortini, Jr., USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Mountainair Ranger Management Today 61(2): 9–11. District, Mountainair, NM, 2000.
8 Fire Management Today All Federal fire program activities should 2.The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and take place in cooperation and partnership natural change agent will be with State and other organizations. incorporated into the planning process. 3.Fire management plans, pro- Principal Conclusions should take place in cooperation grams, and activities support land The Working Group reached the and partnership with State and and resource management plans following principal conclusions: other organizations. and their implementation. 4.Sound risk management is a • The 1995 Federal Fire Policy is Full implementation of many foundation for all fire manage- still generally sound and appro- specific action items from the 1995 ment activities. priate. Federal Fire Policy remains critical 5.Fire management programs and • As a result of fire exclusion, the for the successful implementation activities are economically viable, condition of fire-adapted ecosys- of the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. The based upon values to be pro- tems continues to deteriorate; the Review and Update contains a tected, costs, and land and fire hazard situation in these detailed listing of the status of those resource management objectives. areas is worse than previously action items, along with appropri- 6.Fire management plans and understood. ate future actions based on the 2001 activities are based upon the best • The fire hazard situation in the Federal Fire Policy and associated available science. wildland–urban interface is more implementation actions. 7.Fire management plans and complex and extensive than activities incorporate public understood in 1995. Guiding Principles health and environmental quality • Changes and additions to the The 2001 Federal Fire Policy and its considerations. 1995 Federal Fire Policy are implementation are founded on the 8.Federal, State, tribal, local, needed to address important following guiding principles: interagency, and international issues of ecosystem sustainability, coordination and cooperation are science, education, and commu- 1.Firefighter and public safety is the essential. nication; and to provide for first priority in every fire manage- 9.Standardization of policies and adequate program evaluation. ment activity. procedures among Federal •Implementation of the 1995 agencies is an ongoing objective. Federal Fire Policy has been incomplete, particularly in the quality of planning and in inter- agency and interdisciplinary matters. •Emphasis on program manage- ment, implementation, oversight, leadership, and evaluation at senior levels of all Federal agen- cies is critical for successful implementation of the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. Implementation Each of the departments or agen- cies participating in the review should adopt the guiding principles, 2001 Federal Fire Policy state- ments, and implementation actions Homes destroyed by wildland fire in the wildland–rural interface on the American River in in this Review and Update. All California. “The fire hazard situation in the wildland–urban interface,” notes the 2001 Federal Fire Policy, “is more complex and extensive than understood in 1995.” Photo: Federal fire program activities USDA Forest Service, 1992.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 9 Key Themes Fire management managing agencies (e.g., the Department of Defense and Depart- Ecosystem Sustainability. The plans that address 1995 Federal Fire Policy recognized ment of Energy) and agencies with the role fire plays as a critical all aspects of fire supporting or related programs natural process. This Review and management activities (e.g., the National Weather Service, Update builds on the 1995 Federal remain the foundation Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, and Federal Fire Policy Review to include for implementing the policies recognizing the role of fire Emergency Management Agency) as in sustaining healthy ecosystems, 2001 Federal Fire full partners in wildland fire man- the restoration and rehabilitation of Policy. agement activities and programs. burned lands, and the importance The Review and Update also adds a of sound science in fire manage- specific policy on communication ment activities. of wildland fire, prevention, and and education to ensure that the wildland–urban interface roles and 2001 Federal Fire Policy is well Fire Planning. The 1995 Federal responsibilities, are carried forward understood inside the fire manage- Fire Policy requires fire manage- in the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. The ment agencies and by the public. ment plans for all areas with 2001 Federal Fire Policy clearly burnable vegetation. Significant states that response to wildland fire Program Management and Over- work remains to complete these is based on the fire management sight. The Working Group found plans for many areas. Many plans plan, not the ignition source or that there is no effective means of need updating and integration with location of the fire. The Review and overseeing and evaluating imple- underlying land management plans. Update recognizes the need to reach mentation of fire policy, especially Agencies such as the Departments agreement on the requirements for across agency and program lines. A of Defense and Energy need to weather products and services, and new policy on evaluation is there- coordinate their planning efforts the best means to meet those fore included in the 2001 Federal based on the 2001 Federal Fire requirements. Fire Policy. The need for a mecha- Policy. Fire management plans that nism for coordinated interagency address all aspects of fire manage- Interagency Coordination and and interdisciplinary fire manage- ment activities remain the founda- Cooperation. A key theme of the ment program leadership and tion for implementing the 2001 1995 Federal Fire Policy is the oversight is included in the imple- Federal Fire Policy and must be importance of standardization and mentation actions. Other actions to completed as promptly as possible. interagency cooperation and improve program management coordination among Federal include analyses of workforce Fire Operations. The 1995 Federal agencies and between Federal requirements and of fire manage- Fire Policy statements on opera- agencies and non-Federal organiza- ment and suppression organiza- ■ tional aspects of fire management, tions. The Review and Update tional structures. including safety, protection priori- recognizes the importance of ties, preparedness, suppression, use including additional Federal land
10 Fire Management Today TABULAR CROSSWALK BETWEEN THE 1995 AND 2001 FEDERAL FIRE POLICIES Editor’s note: The table below, based on the 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Manage- ment Policy, shows changes in Federal wildland fire management policy from 1995 to 2001.
Policy element 1995 Policy 2001 Policy
Safety Firefighter and public safety is the first Firefighter and public safety is the first priority. All fire management plans and priority. All fire management plans and activities must reflect this commitment. activities must reflect this commitment.
Ecosystem — The full range of fire management activities sustainability will be used to achieve ecosystem sustainability, including its interrelated ecological, economic, and social compo- nents.
Response to wildland fire Fire, as a critical natural process, will be Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land and resource manage- integrated into land and resource manage- ment plans and activities on a landscape ment plans and activities on a landscape scale, across agency boundaries, and will be scale, and across agency boundaries. Re- based upon the best available science. All sponse to wildland fires is based on ecologi- use of fire for resource management cal, social, and legal consequences of the requires a formal prescription. Manage- fire. The circumstances under which a fire ment actions taken on wildland fires will be occurs and the likely consequences for consistent with approved fire management firefighter and public safety and welfare, plans. natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected dictate the appropriate response to the fire.
Use of wildland fire Wildland fire will be used to protect, Wildland fire will be used to protect, main- maintain, and enhance resources and, as tain, and enhance resources and, as nearly as nearly as possible, be allowed to function in possible, be allowed to function in its natural its natural ecological role. ecological role. Use of fire will be based on approved fire management plans and will follow specific prescriptions contained in operational plans.
Rehabilitation and restora- — Rehabilitation and restoration efforts will be tion undertaken to protect and sustain ecosys- tems, public health, and safety; and to help communities protect infrastructure.
Protection priorities Protection priorities are (1) human life and The protection of human life is the single, (2) property and natural and cultural overriding suppression priority. Setting resources. If it becomes necessary to priorities among protecting human commu- prioritize between property and natural and nities and community infrastructure, other cultural resources, this is done based on property and improvements, and natural and relative values to be protected, commensu- cultural resources will be done based on the rate with fire management costs. Once values to be protected, human health and people have been committed to an incident, safety, and the costs of protection. Once these resources become the highest value people have been committed to an incident, to be protected. these human resources become the highest value to be protected.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 11 Policy element 1995 Policy 2001 Policy
Wildland–urban The operational role of Federal agencies as The operational role of Federal and State interface a partner in the wildland–urban interface is agencies as partners in the wildland–urban wildland firefighting, hazard fuel reduction, interface are wildland firefighting, hazard cooperative prevention and education, and fuels reduction, cooperative prevention and technical assistance. Structural fire education, and technical assistance. Struc- protection is the responsibility of tribal, tural fire suppression is the responsibility of State, and local governments. Federal tribal, State, or local governments. Federal agencies may assist with exterior structural agencies may assist with exterior structural suppression activities under formal fire protection activities under formal fire protection agreements that specify the protection agreements that specify the mutual responsibilities of the partners, mutual responsibilities of the partners, including funding. (Some Federal agencies including funding. (Some Federal agencies have full structural protection authority for have full structural protection authority for their facilities on lands they administer and their facilities on lands they administer and may also enter into formal agreements to may also enter into formal agreements to assist State and local governments with full assist State and local governments with full structural protection.) structural protection.)
Planning Every area with burnable vegetation must Every area with burnable vegetation must have an approved fire management plan. have an approved fire management plan. Fire Fire management plans must be consistent management plans are strategic plans that with firefighter and public safety, values to define a program to manage wildland and be protected, and land and resource prescribed fires based on the area’s approved management plans and must address land management plan. Fire management public health issues. Fire management plans must provide for firefighter and public plans must also address all potential safety; include fire management strategies, wildland fire occurrences and include the tactics, and alternatives; address values to be full range of fire management actions. protected and public health issues; and be consistent with resource management objectives, activities of the area, and environ- mental laws and regulations.
Science — Fire management plans and programs will be based on a foundation of sound science. Research will support ongoing efforts to increase our scientific knowledge of biologi- cal, physical, and sociological factors. Information needed to support fire manage- ment will be developed through an inte- grated interagency fire science program. Scientific results must be made available to managers in a timely manner and must be used in the development of land manage- ment plans, fire management plans, and implementation plans.
Preparedness Agencies will ensure their capability to Agencies will ensure their capability to provide safe, cost-effective fire manage- provide safe, cost-effective fire management ment programs in support of land and programs in support of land and resource resource management plans through management plans through appropriate appropriate planning, staffing, training, planning, staffing, training, equipment, and and equipment. management oversight.
Suppression Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety, considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected, benefits, and values to be protected, consis- consistent with resource objectives. tent with resource objectives.
12 Fire Management Today Policy element 1995 Policy 2001 Policy
Prevention Agencies will work together and with other Agencies will work together and with their affected groups and individuals to prevent partners and other affected groups and unauthorized ignition of wildland fires. individuals to prevent unauthorized ignition of wildland fires.
Standardization Agencies will use compatible planning Agencies will use compatible planning processes, funding mechanisms, training processes, funding mechanisms, training and qualification requirements, operational and qualification requirements, operational procedures, values-to-be-protected meth- procedures, values-to-be-protected method- odologies, and public education programs ologies, and public education programs for for all fire management activities. all fire management activities.
Interagency cooperation Fire management planning, preparedness, Fire management planning, preparedness, suppression, fire use, monitoring, and prevention, suppression, fire use, restoration research will be conducted on an inter- and rehabilitation, monitoring, research, and agency basis with the involvement of all education will be conducted on an inter- parties. agency basis with the involvement of cooperators and partners.
Communication and — Agencies will enhance knowledge and education understanding of wildland fire management policies and practices through internal and external communication and education programs. These programs will be continuously improved through the timely and effective exchange of information among all affected agencies and organizations.
Agency administrator and Employees who are trained and certified Agency administrators will ensure that their employee roles will participate in the wildland fire program employees are trained, certified, and made as the situation demands; employees with available to participate in the wildland fire operational, administrative, or other skills program locally, regionally, and nationally as will support the wildland fire program as the situation demands. Employees with needed. Administrators are responsible and operational, administrative, or other skills will be accountable for making employees will support the wildland fire program as available. necessary. Agency administrators are responsible and will be held accountable for making employees available.
Evaluation — Agencies will develop and implement a systematic method of evaluation to determine effectiveness of projects through implementa- tion of the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. The evaluation will assure accountability, facilitate resolution of areas of conflict, and identify resource shortages and agency priorities.
Economic efficiency Fire management programs and activities — will be based on economic analyses that incorporated commodity, noncommodity, and social values.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 13 AN AGENCY STRATEGY FOR FIRE MANAGEMENT (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) Editor’s note: In 1999, the USDA Forest Service commissioned a National Management Review Team to review chronic problems related to wildland fire management (see sidebar). On January 12, 2000, the team released An Agency Strategy for Fire Management. The executive summary is reprinted here, lightly edited. The full report is posted on the World Wide Web at
ver the past 10 years, several significant programmatic Without a significant organizational change, Oreports have highlighted our ability to manage large fires persistent and recurrent problems will be compromised. in wildland fire management. Major cultural and demographic changes in the workforce and significant and available staffing for large- 3.Establish an Implementation programmatic changes in the incident management is diminish- Team comprised of a representa- agency have resulted in increased ing. Therefore, the following tive cross-section of interagency costs and a significant reduction in recommendations were developed partners and interests. Oversight agency workforce participation on to address this and other issues for implementation would be large fires. Without a significant concerning large-incident manage- provided by the Forest Service’s organizational change, the overall ment: Deputy Regional Foresters for ability to manage large fires will be State and Private Forestry. compromised. 1.Develop and implement a na- 4.Establish a continuous monitor- tional Large Incident Manage- ing process with annual reports Strategic Review ment Organization, dedicated and on progress. This report is a comprehensive and professional, to more effectively 5.Assign an appropriate group to strategic examination of past manage large-fire operations and resolve issues raised by the State reviews, policies, and direction for natural disasters. The recommen- Foresters concerning the 1995 the fire management program. dation is predicated on building a Federal Wildland Fire Manage- strong local initial- and extended- ment Policy and Program Review. The National Management Review attack fire program and imple- Team consisted of representatives menting an aggressive ecosystem Pathway to Change from Forest Service line officers, restoration program. This repre- The recommended pathway is the National Fire Protection Asso- sents a significant departure from conceptual in nature. There are ciation, the National Association of today’s operation and will require many actions necessary to success- State Foresters, the National Park a major commitment of people fully implement this pathway. Service, the Brookings Institution, and resources. Without a fundamental change in and Forest Service Fire and Aviation 2.Clearly articulate to the field that the way large fires are managed, we Management staff. A full range of an independent Federal Fire can expect to experience the prob- alternatives (pathways) were Service will NOT be pursued or lems of today well into the future, developed, including designating a entertained. The linkage to the including a perceived lack of Forest Federal fire service, an outsourced agency’s land management Service capability to manage both fire service, and a “national” large- mission is simply too important wildfire and prescribed fire. ■ incident management organization. to divorce aspects of fire manage- ment and fire use from the The primary finding of this review agency. is that the current level of dedicated
14 Fire Management Today We need a strong local initial- CHRONIC PROBLEMS and extended-attack fire program and an CALL FOR A aggressive ecosystem restoration program. CHANGE
Editor’s note: The following excerpt from the introduction to An Agency Strategy for Fire Management highlights the strategic challenges facing wildland fire management in the USDA Forest Service.
The Chief of the Forest Service commissioned a review team to look into several unresolved and lingering problems related to the fire management program. The Forest Service fire and fuels program is not well integrated with the land management program of the agency. In some instances line and staff officer relationships regarding fire management are ineffective. The Forest Service’s ability to provide adequate support to large fires is diminishing. Many coopera- tors and partners think the Forest Service is ineffective and inefficient in fire manage- ment. These four problems are chronic. They have been identified over and over in many reviews in the 1990s. These four problems need immediate resolution.
It is time for a change. Cover of the USDA Forest Service report An Agency Strategy for Fire Management (January 2000). Changes in the agency workforce, coupled with a rising number of large fires in recent decades, have triggered new strategic directions for wildland fire management. “Without a fundamental change in the way large fires are managed,” warns the report, “we can expect to experience the problems of today well into the future.”
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 15 PROTECTING PEOPLE AND SUSTAINING RESOURCES IN FIRE-ADAPTED ECOSYSTEMS: A COHESIVE STRATEGY (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) Editor’s note: On October 13, 2000, the USDA Forest Service released Protecting People and Sustaining Re- sources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. The report responded to a study by the General Ac- counting Office under the title, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed To Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. The executive summary of A Cohesive Strategy is reprinted here, lightly edited. The full report is posted on the World Wide Web at
16 Fire Management Today Dwindling habitat for threatened and endangered species will eventually be affected by wildland fire. ency elements. The cohesion of this Within the Forest Service, ecosys- Service may choose to initiate strategy stands on the collective tem management concepts con- restoration and maintenance strength of these three core ele- tinue to evolve into practice. This objectives within fire-adapted ments. report describes a cohesive set of ecosystems. ■ actions from which the Forest
Open ponderosa pine forest with Douglas-fir understory before (left) and after (right) a prescribed fire (Lick Creek drainage, Bitterroot National Forest, MT). By reducing ladder fuels, the burn diminished the danger of an uncharacteristically severe fire. Photos: Robert C. Szaro, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 1990.
Water is the most critical resource in many Western States.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 17 REDUCING FIRE DANGER: IS CURRENT POLICY ON COURSE?
Hutch Brown
ire-related forest health prob- lems in the United States are a The goal is to restore F growing national concern. healthy forest ecosystems, Today, millions of acres are at risk including historical fire regimes. from fires that could threaten lives, communities, and wildland re- sources. Most people agree that fuel buildups after decades of fire exclusion are at the root of the problem—but here the agreement ends.
The USDA Forest Service, sup- ported by extensive scientific assessments (COS 1999; ICBEMP 2000; OAHS 1999; SNEP 1996; Thomas 2000), is taking a balanced approach to restoring forest health, one that focuses on ecological sustainability and a desired future condition for the land (Dombeck 2001a; Forest Service 2000). Depending on location and site conditions, treatments include silvicultural thinning and fire use (Dombeck 2001b). The goal is to restore the composition, structure, and processes associated with healthy forest ecosystems, includ- ing historical fire regimes.
Critics charge that the Forest Service is pursuing the “tinderbox policies” of letting forests “rot and burn” (AF&PA 2001; Nelson 2001). They blame the Forest Service’s “policy of passive management and ecological preeminence” for putting “our national forests in their present condition” (AF&PA 2001). They accuse the agency of an illicit “‘mission shift’ away from a focus
Open ponderosa pine forest with Douglas-fir understory before (top) and after (bottom) Hutch Brown is the managing editor of Fire mechanical low thinning. The understory ladder fuels constituted a fire hazard, making Management Today, USDA Forest Service, fire use unsafe before their removal. Photos: Tom Iraci, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Washington Office, Washington, DC. Northwest Region, Portland, OR, 1992.
18 Fire Management Today For decades, the Forest Service Pinchot’s approach to conservation helped to inaugurate the extractive treated all fire, regardless of type or site, model of forestry prevalent in as a threat to forest health. public land management from the 1890s to the 1970s (Kennedy and Dombeck 1999). Fire control was on multiple outputs” (AF&PA 2001; Gifford Pinchot, the first Forest key. Pinchot and his successors as Sedjo 2000), demanding a return to Service Chief. Pinchot’s conserva- Forest Service Chief “never doubted “a clear utilitarian goal” of manag- tionism was born of profligate what to his generation of American ing public lands “as valuable abuse by preceding generations. foresters seemed the most funda- sources of wood, recreation and “When the Gay Nineties began,” he mental of precepts: Without fire other outputs” (Nelson 2001). The recalled, “the common word for our control nothing else mattered” solution to our forest health prob- forests was ‘inexhaustible.’ To waste (Pyne 2001). For forestry to suc- lem, critics claim, is to boost timber timber was a virtue and not a ceed, land managers believed, the harvest to “remove much of the crime” (Pinchot 1947). tree crop would have to be pro- excess fuels by mechanical means” tected from every fire (Greeley (Nelson 2000a, 2000b). Most early lumbermen clearcut 1920). Fire protection became virgin forests for the best sections central to the agency’s mission; fire Is the Forest Service policy wrong? of bole, leaving huge mounds of exclusion remained, in one form or Are land managers practicing the slash on cutover lands. Lightning or another, the prevalent agency very treatments that caused forest artificial flames often ignited the doctrine until 1977. health to decline? Are increased slash, causing enormous wildfires timber outputs the answer? that swept the countryside. For Through a decentralized organiza- loggers, the trick was to harvest the tion, the early Forest Service next virgin stand before flames Origins of Fire Control worked closely with local home- “roared out of the slash and left Americans have long struggled with steaders and communities to meet nothing for them to mill,” in the conflicting notions of sustainable their needs. The agency’s earliest words of the historian Stephen J. forest management. One of the first Use Book instructed forest officers Pyne (2001). Under such circum- to wrestle with the problem was to provide settlers, schools, stances, “only a madman [would] churches, road districts, and coop- consider replanting the cutover.” erative associations with goods and services for free or at a nominal One such “madman” was Pinchot. charge but to require full payment Recognizing the abuse, Pinchot from commercial enterprises resolved to end the waste by pio- (Pinchot 1947). In the 1930s, the neering sustainable forestry on agency reaffirmed its commitment public lands—the national for- to the common good by giving work ests—as a model for the nation. on conservation projects to thou- Influenced by European industrial sands of unemployed Americans forestry, Pinchot maintained that through the Civilian Conservation intensive land management for Corps (CCC). commercial resource extraction was the cornerstone of conservation. The CCC, followed in the postwar “Forestry is handling trees so that period by aircraft and other one crop follows another,” he firefighting technologies, provided declared (Pinchot 1947). Forest the means to extend fire control benefits such as soil and water into the backcountry (Pyne 1982). conservation were, in Pinchot’s The number of acres burned Fire prevention poster from 1941. During view, “other products on the side”— World War II, the Forest Service conflated annually nationwide declined from byproducts of growing “trees as a its fire control mission with national an average of 39 million in the defense, reinforcing the traditional crop.” approach to wildland fire management as 1930s to less than 5 million by the “the moral equivalent of war.” Illustration: 1960s. For decades, the Forest USDA Forest Service.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 19 Service enjoyed such high levels of “In free use, as in timber sales, public confidence that it was largely able to regulate itself through the the welfare of the forest must come first.” Use Book and other administrative guidelines. –Gifford Pinchot, 1947 Timber Boom clamored for national forest timber. as constraints. Long-term benefits Things began to change after World The Forest Service obliged, consis- such as watershed integrity were War II, when the Forest Service tently offering the greatest annual overlooked in favor of short-term delivered vast quantities of old- allowable cut (Fedkiw 1999). An- benefits from timber receipts. growth timber to the mills to help nual harvests quadrupled, from less support the postwar housing boom. than 3 billion board feet in the early In 1964–65, slope failure on Idaho’s In the process, local ties gave way to 1940s to more than 12 billion board Boise and Payette National Forests corporate connections. A timber feet by the mid-1960s. Long-term sent 1.5 million cubic yards boomlet in the 1920s foreshadowed planning was for still higher out- (1.1 million m3) of soil slumping events to come. puts: The 1961 Development into the South Fork Salmon River Program for National Forests and its tributaries, degrading water In 1915, a logging company from projected annual harvests of 21.1 quality and salmon habitat in much Kansas City, MO, built a mill in billion board feet by the year 2000. of the Columbia River basin. The Enterprise, OR, a small town on the cause was roadbuilding and logging edge of the Wallowa National Ninety percent of the increase in on steep slopes weakened by de- Forest. Citizens welcomed the new national forest timber harvests from cades of abuse through mining and jobs and related business, confident 1950 to 1970 came from western grazing (Fedkiw 1999). Clearly, the that the Forest Service would old-growth forests (Fedkiw 1999). byproducts that Pinchot had provide long-term resource protec- Forest Service managers regarded expected from growing “trees as a tion. The Forest Service fed the mill old growth as “decadent” or crop”—clean water and abundant through timber sales, consistently “overmature” and welcomed its soils—could no longer be taken for offering the highest allowable sale removal for replacement by faster granted. quantities. growing stands, thought to be a continuous crop of timber that New Model of By 1928, the prime timber was gone could support local businesses Sustainability and the mill had closed. “What is so forever. “But this formula never depressing is that there was noth- By the 1970s, the extractive model worked,” concluded Langston for managing the land was discred- ing at all unusual about this story,” (1995). As in the case of Enterprise remarked the historian Nancy ited (see sidebar). The Forest in Oregon, mills closed and futures Service was embroiled in a national Langston (1995). “A small town collapsed as soon as the local pinned its hopes on a single natural controversy over clearcuts on the resource was exhausted or markets Bitterroot and Monongahela resource, and soon that resource were saturated (Hirt 1999). was exhausted. The capital for National Forests, further staining development came from somewhere the agency’s now tarnished reputa- Undeterred, the Forest Service tion. Broad sectors of the public else, and that company pulled out continued to collaborate with the after the lumber was cut and the demanded a return to a bedrock timber industry. The revenue flow Forest Service principle first investments met. The locals were was habit forming, even when sales left holding an empty bag.” formulated by Gifford Pinchot were below cost. Timber harvests (1947): “In free use, as in timber drove forest development; forest Initially, such cases were rare, sales, the welfare of the forest must supervisors overcame budget come first.” because the timber industry usually limitations by using new roads and tried to keep national forest timber timber funds for other management In the 1930s, the great ecologist off the market to help sustain high purposes (Fedkiw 1999). Con- prices for private timber (Williams Aldo Leopold had recognized the versely, values and activities that need and set the stage. German- 2000a). But after World War II, with failed to generate revenue were seen private stocks depleted, the industry speaking by birth, he visited Ger-
20 Fire Management Today many to study the origins of what Chief F. Dale Robertson, speaking he called “the wood factory con- before Congress in 1992, renewed cept” of forestry (Leopold 1936a). the call for an ecosystem-based Germany’s new, holistic approaches approach to multiple-use manage- to land management, designed to ment. In 1993, following a regional reverse some of the worst damages Forest Conference convened by wrought by industrial forestry, President Bill Clinton in Portland, impressed Leopold. “The Germans OR, the Northwest Forest Plan now realize,” he observed, “that created the first blueprint for increment bought at the expense of ecosystem-based management soil health, landscape beauty, and across jurisdictions on a landscape wildlife is poor economics as well as level. By protecting old-growth poor public policy.” habitat for the northern spotted owl, the plan slowed a stream of Based in part on Leopold’s insights, lawsuits that had paralyzed public a new resource management model land management in the Pacific A large Douglas-fir toppling on the 1949 began to emerge. In 1970, Forest Iron Creek Timber Sale, Gifford Pinchot Northwest. Service Chief Edward Cliff called for National Forest, WA. Postwar timber “an ecosystem approach to mul- harvest on the national forests soared to Robertson’s successor as Forest tiple-use management” (Fedkiw support a housing boom. Ninety percent of Service Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, the increase from 1950 to 1970 came from 1999). In the years that followed, western old-growth forests. Photo: Courtesy echoed the call for an ecosystem- researchers laid the groundwork for of USDA National Agricultural Library, based approach. He defined its goal ecosystem-based management Special Collections, Forest Service as ecosystem sustainability: Land Photograph Collection, Beltsville, MD through ecoregional mapping and (Leland J. Prater, 1949; 456997). and resource use must not be “new forestry” approaches. allowed to undermine the health,
A LAND USE REVOLUTION
The postwar period saw a revolu- city dwellers venturing onto public sion between Federal agencies tion in public land use. In 1946, wildlands (Fedkiw 1999). The goal and commercial interests in our national forests and grass- implicit in the USDA Forest degrading the land for the profit lands hosted just 18 million Service’s early Use Book of manag- of a privileged few. In response, visitor-days. By 1965, that figure ing public lands primarily to meet Congress passed a series of laws topped 160 million; by 1996, it the homesteading needs of rural in the 1960s and 1970s providing was 341 million, an 18-fold citizens therefore made sense. By greater environmental protec- increase in just five decades. 1990, however, that goal was tions and requiring a more Recreational use eclipsed com- obsolete. Four-fifths of all Ameri- comprehensive approach to mercial resource extraction on cans were now urban and most managing public lands, including public lands. By 1996, some 1.7 were driving. Many spent weekends increased public participation. million recreational vehicles were or vacations on public lands, where using roads on the national they expected to find pristine Public land managers were forests every day—about 117 conditions for adventure, relax- initially slow to respond, but a times more than the 15,000 ation, and spiritual renewal. Public new approach to land manage- logging vehicles sharing the same land managers would ignore their ment gradually emerged. Today, forest roads. expectations at their own peril. based on the principle of sustainability, the Forest Service The public land use revolution Discontent began to build in the focuses on maintaining and reflected changing demographics. 1950s. As more Americans visited restoring healthy ecosystems as a In Gifford Pinchot’s day, the their public lands, protests grew foundation for all the values and American population was about against clearcuts, mining scars, and benefits that Americans obtain evenly divided between rural and watershed degradation. Increas- from their public lands. urban citizens, with relatively few ingly, the public perceived a collu-
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 21 diversity, or productivity of ecosys- “Without ecologically sustainable systems, tems on which future generations will depend for a continuous flow of other uses of the land and its resources resource benefits. could be impaired.”
In 1997, the Secretary of Agricul- –Committee of Scientists, 1999 ture appointed a Committee of Scientists to guide the Forest Service in revising its planning rule ment planning, promulgated in Service through the 10 A.M. Policy under the National Forest Manage- December 2000. promulgated in 1935. Nevertheless, ment Act of 1976. The committee the agency had continued to validated the principle of sustain- What exactly is sustainability? conduct prescribed burns in the ability, including conservative use Sustainability replaces an emphasis South, and support for fire use had (see sidebar). “[P]lanning for the on commodity extraction with a lingered (Brown 2000; Williams multiple use and sustained yield of broader, more multiple-use focus 2000b). From the 1930s to the the resources of the national forests on all the benefits and values that 1960s, research by the Forest and grasslands,” the committee healthy lands provide. It up-ends Service’s Southern and Southeast- advised, “should operate within a the old extractive model: Instead of ern Forest Experiment Stations baseline level of ensuring the trusting that soil and water conser- supported the independent findings sustainability of ecological systems vation will emerge as a byproduct of of E.V. Komarek and the Tall and native species. Without ecologi- growing “trees as a crop,” sustain- Timbers Research Station, demon- cally sustainable systems, other ability focuses directly on restabi- strating the ecological role played uses of the land and its resources lizing soils and waterflows—on by wildland fire in ecosystems. could be impaired” (COS 1999). restoring the function, structure, Based on the committee’s report, and composition of historical eco- By the 1960s, the exponential the Forest Service drafted a new systems. The trees that will then growth of fire suppression costs and rule for national forest manage- inevitably grow, including those the persistence of occasional severe removed and used for wood fiber, fire seasons were raising new are the byproducts of healthy forest doubts about the viability of fire ecosystems. exclusion as a national policy (NWCG 2001). Promoted by passage Sustainability is based on a simple of the Wilderness Act in 1964, truth: On healthy lands, Federal which limited human intervention land managers can meet their in wilderness areas, an alternative statutory obligations to deliver a policy began to emerge. In 1967, full range of uses, including com- the Forest Service relaxed controls mercial outputs; on degraded lands, on early- and late-season fires; a they cannot. In the best tradition of year later, the USDI National Park Progressive-Era conservation, Service abandoned fire exclusion sustainability serves the long-term altogether. In 1977, the Forest interests of all Americans—or, as Service followed suit, replacing the Gifford Pinchot (1947) put it, “the 10 A.M. Policy and its variant, the greatest good for the greatest 10-Acre Policy, with a flexible policy number for the longest time.” that allowed local fire managers to consider alternatives to full sup- Northern spotted owl. Rapid postwar harvest of old-growth timber in the Pacific Shift in Fire pression, including the use of fire. Northwest reduced habitat for the owl, Management leading to its listing as threatened. In the The 1988 Yellowstone Fires and the mid-1990s, the Northwest Forest Plan The ecosystem approach to land created the first blueprint for ecosystem management signaled a parallel 1994 fire season, with its 34 fatali- management across jurisdictions on a shift in wildland fire management. ties, placed fire management policy landscape level, protecting remaining old- Long before, fire exclusion had been under renewed scrutiny. Each time, growth habitat for the owl. Photo: USDA review teams reconfirmed a flexible Forest Service. formally adopted by the Forest policy incorporating fire use. In
22 Fire Management Today Ecosystem-based land management CONSERVATIVE USE: precipitated a parallel shift A PRINCIPLE OF in wildland fire management. SUSTAINABILITY
1995, an interagency wildland fire Fire exclusion is deeply ingrained in Sustainability means, among management policy emerged to the culture of wildland fire manage- other things, conservative use to help coordinate activities across ment. The Forest Service was keep options open for future jurisdictions. The 1995 Federal Fire founded on an extractive model of generations. For example, we Policy was based on the insight that forestry and, by corollary, a policy of know from experience that fire fire was “a critical natural process” fire exclusion. For decades, the use can be a sound method for that should be “integrated into land agency focused on maximizing diminishing fuels, reducing fire and resource management plans resource extraction, based on “the danger, and restoring forest and activities on a landscape scale” uncritical assumption,” as Aldo health. We are far less certain (NWCG 1995). In 2001, despite a Leopold (1936b) put it, “… that the about commercial timber high-visibility prescribed fire escape practice of forestry in and of itself, harvest as a forest health treat- near Los Alamos, NM, in May regardless of what kind or how ment. 2000,* a top-level interagency much,” promotes conservation. policy review and update recon- Some research suggests that firmed the wisdom of carefully The grand experiment ended in changes in forest structure and planned fire use, generating the failure. Today, some 71 million composition associated with 2001 Federal Fire Policy (NWCG acres of national forests are at risk roadbuilding and timber harvest 2001). from wildland fires that could can increase the risk of unchar- compromise ecosystem integrity acteristic fire effects (Thomas Today, wildland fire management on and human safety (F&AM 2001). 2000). Moreover, we do not fully our national forests and grasslands Our fire problem stems in good part understand the impacts of tim- serves the overarching goal of from the policy of fire exclusion ber removal on forest health, sustainability. “The full range of fire inaugurated by the early Forest particularly on nutrient cycles management activities will be used Service to make public lands safe and on species interrelationships to achieve ecosystem sustainabil- for growing “trees as a crop.” in forest soils and canopies. ity,” declares the 2001 Federal Fire Policy, “including its interrelated Stephen J. Pyne, America’s leading We do know that roadbuilding ecological, economic, and social wildland fire historian, has fre- and logging operations, espe- components” (NWCG 2001). Land quently chronicled the “ecological cially if best management managers are to use all the tools at pandemonium” associated with practices are ignored, can their disposal, including fire sup- European settlement and the disrupt fire cycles; compact and pression and fire use, to achieve removal of indigenous burning erode soils; increase runoff and a desired future condition for from America’s landscape. Fire stream siltation; alter forest the land. Outcomes, not outputs, exclusion greatly exacerbated the composition and structure; and are key. disruption of historical fire regimes eliminate valuable habitat for and ecosystem health. The celebra- threatened and endangered Difficult Course Ahead tion of fire control through the species. For these reasons, timber harvest on public lands is Ultimately, policy is meaningful cultivation of epic tales of firefight- controversial. Conservative use only if practiced. Fire use to sup- ing, beginning with the Big Blowup therefore dictates caution in port sustainable forest management of 1910, has troubling implications applying mechanical timber must overcome a powerful legacy of for the long-term effectiveness of removal as a method for restor- fire control (see sidebar on page fire protection in the United States ing forest health. 25). The course ahead will not (Pyne 2000, 2001). be easy. Pyne (2001) observes that the Forest Service’s long obsession with * See Jim Paxon, “‘Remember Los Alamos’: The Cerro Grande Fire,” Fire Management Today 60(4): 9–14. fire control has created forests that
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 23 cannot “readily accept light fires,” Today, wildland fire management leaving managers caught in a bind: If they set fire or let burn, they risk on our national forests and grasslands destroying what they would protect; serves the overarching goal of sustainability. if they suppress fire, fuel conditions will further deteriorate, increasing Dombeck, M. 2001b. A National Fire Plan ICBEMP (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosys- the fire danger. For fire managers, for future land health. Fire Management tem Management Project). 2000. Interior the necessary task of navigating Today. 61(2): 4–8. Columbia Basin Final Environmental F&AM (Fire and Aviation Management). Impact Statement. Washington, DC: U.S. between the Scylla of a fire escape 2000a. Land categories burned, fire Department of Agriculture and U.S. and the Charybdis of spiraling fuel season 2000. Unpub. rep. to Congress Department of the Interior. buildups will not be easy. (September 2000) on file at the USDA Kennedy, J.J.; Dombeck, M.P. 1999. The Forest Service, Washington Office, evolution of public agency beliefs and F&AM, Washington, DC. behavior toward ecosystem-based References F&AM. 2001. What basis does the Forest stewardship. In: Johnson, N.C.; Malik, AF&PA (American Forest and Paper Service have for evaluating fire risks? A.J.; Szaro, R.C.; Sexton, W.T. Ecological Association). 2001. Attempt by U.S. Unpub. rep. on file at the USDA Forest stewardship: A common reference for Forest Service to change its multiple-use Service, Washington, DC. ecosystem management. Volume III. mission. [Website
24 Fire Management Today Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking new ground. Sedjo, R.A. 2000. Does the Forest Service Thomas, D. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Washington, DC: Island Press. have a future? In: Sedjo, R.A., ed. A vision Area Conservation Final Environmental Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cultural for the U.S. Forest Service: Goals for its Impact Statement: Fuel management and history of wildland and rural fire. Seattle, next century. Washington, DC: Resources fire suppression specialist’s report. London: University of Washington Press. for the Future. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Pyne, S.J. 2000. A story to tell. Fire SNEP (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project). Williams, G.W. 2000a. The USDA Forest Management Today. 60(4): 6–8. 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Service—The first century. Washington, Pyne, S.J. 2001. Year of the fires: The story Nevada Ecosystem Project, final report to DC: USDA Forest Service. of the great fires of 1910. New York, NY: Congress. Wildl. Res. Ctr. Rep. No. 37. Williams, G.W. 2000b. Wildland fire Viking. Davis, CA: University of California–Davis, management in the 20th century. Fire Center for Water and Wildland Resources. Management Today. 60(4): 15–20. ■
FIRE CONTROL LEGACY
In recent decades, the USDA Forest usually have little or no commer- • Fire use risks. Fire use carries Service has embraced a long-term cial value. The ecological effects social and political risks. commitment to ecological sustain- of mechanical treatments are – Escapes. Escaped prescribed ability. However, decades of fire sometimes adverse or poorly fires have destroyed thou- control have made it difficult for understood; proposals for sands of homes and cost at local managers to introduce mechanical removal therefore least one life (on the 1980 alternatives to fire exclusion. face frequent public opposition. Mack Lake Fire on Michigan’s • Fire use constraints. Managers • Obsolete measures. Standards Huron–Manistee National might have no alternative to fire for measuring fire management Forest). High-visibility exclusion. Fuel buildups have success are based on the old fire escapes such as the 2000 left many ecosystems prone to control policy of suppressing all Cerro Grande Fire in New explosive fire conditions. In such fires within 24 hours. Mexico have a political fallout areas, fire use could pose unac- – Number of fires and acres that can dampen land manag- ceptable risks. burned. All fires are not equal. ers’ willingness or ability to • Planning inertia. In 2000, some The Forest Service is working take the risk again. 63 percent of the acres burned on plans to use new technol- – Smoke. Lingering smoke on the National Forest System ogy to detect fire severity in from fire use can carry health were in roadless and wilderness relation to fire regime and risks, contribute to traffic areas (F&AM 2000a). Remote condition class. Future fire accidents by reducing visibil- areas are often in the stand reporting might distinguish, ity, and adversely affect replacement fire regime, where for example, between charac- incomes in resource-depen- alternatives to full suppression teristic and uncharacteristic dent communities by discour- are desirable and arguably fire effects, for a more realistic aging recreational visits. inevitable. But alternatives are assessment of fire season However, wildfires have the available only with an approved severity. same effects without the fire management plan. – Fires controlled during initial benefits associated with • Thinning constraints. Mechani- attack. Nominal success—up planning, such as timing, cal thinning, often necessary to 98 percent of fires con- predictability, and mitigation. before fire can be safely applied, trolled during initial attack— – Public antipathy. The is expensive and controversial. can be misleading. For ex- public, weaned on a diet of The small-diameter materials ample, many fires might go fire control, often fears that need to be removed from out on their own without ever wildland fire and opposes its our vegetation-choked forests endangering lives, communi- use. ties, or wildland resources.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 25 FIRES 2000: FACT VS. FICTION*
Stephen W. Barrett
n 2000, about 2.3 million acres (930,000 ha) burned in Idaho and For some forests burned in 2000, IMontana alone. Many wondered still on a natural fire cycle, why the fire season in the northern forest health was not an issue. Rocky Mountains was so severe. A medley of conflicting opinions emerged, often grounded in folk the ponderosa pine type. In theory, of fire suppression and bad logging. wisdom: a region increasingly dominated by Unfortunately, the healing process severe fires will suffer a reduction could be lengthy and might gener- • “The fires were big and therefore in biodiversity. Forest mosaics—the ate some “casualties” in native unnatural.” … or … “The fires very lifeblood of ecosystem diver- ecosystems. For example, how will were natural and therefore big.” sity—are drastically simplified goshawks fare in today’s overly • “The fires were unprecedented in when large crown fires occur on dense ponderosa pine forests? How history.” … or … “Such burning terrain previously subject to patchy much longer will the 500-year-old has always occurred.” nonlethal and mixed-severity fires. trees themselves persist? • “This was the worst fire season in 50 years.” … or … “This was the I think today’s large wildfires are best fire season in 50 years. No Easy Solutions simply nature’s way of lurching Everyone knows fire is natural, so What can be done about the “fire back to equilibrium after a century what’s the problem?” problem?” Not much. Although I generally support plans for more What does the science show? prescribed fire, most prescribed burning occurs on “easy ground” Complex such as open slopes and shrubfields. Circumstances Prescribed burning in heavily stocked stands, besides being a In fact, there are no easy scientific threat to lives, communities, and answers. One must evaluate not wildland resources, actually could only possible changes from histori- increase the likelihood of severe cal fire regimes, but also climatic fires in the near term by producing variables, daily fire weather, topog- heavy mortality. raphy, land use history, and a host of other factors. Some forests Moreover, “restoration logging” has burned in 2000 were still on a become a political football akin to natural fire cycle (see sidebar); for the infamous “Salvage Rider”—the them, forest health was not an 1995 Rescission Act, which tempo- issue. rarily suspended environmental protections to foster widespread However, many low- to mid-eleva- salvage sales on national forest land tion stands have undergone a sea burned in 1994. In my view, the change since 1900, most notably growing clamor for large-scale, Fire scar on a ponderosa pine in the indiscriminate thinning only harms nonlethal fire regime (Idaho City Experi- Steve Barrett, a consulting fire ecologist in mental Forest, Boise National Forest, ID). foresters’ credibility. Open, parklike Kalispell, MT, has studied fire history Historically, low-severity fires every 10 to stands historically were common in throughout the Northern Rockies since 20 years kept such forests open and 1979. dry forest types, whereas other “parklike” without killing the big trees. Photo: Karen Wattenmaker, USDA Forest forests were naturally dense. * This article is derived from an op-ed column that appeared in the Montana Wilderness Association’s Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID, Thinning the latter would destroy newsletter Wild Montana, Fall 2000. 1994.
26 Fire Management Today valuable habitat and could increase * fire danger by promoting fuel FIRE ECOLOGY PRIMER drying. Fire-prone ecosystems are adapted relatively severe, but some fire- to certain “fire regimes”—typical resistant species such as old If ecosystem restoration were the combinations of fire severity and western larch and Douglas-fir only goal, there could be no univer- fire return intervals. Changes in usually survived. Such stands sally applicable model of parklike fire regime can disrupt fire-adapted burned about every 75 years, on stands. Unfortunately, other objec- ecosystems. In the Northern average, but many have not Rockies, six fire regimes are burned for 100 years or more. tives, such as fuel hazard reduction prevalent: These stands are still natural, but and crop tree protection, have often long-term fire exclusion has been lumped into the now amor- Nonlethal fire regime. Historically, pushed many fire intervals toward phous term “forest restoration.” I “nonlethal” fires averaged every 10 the upper end of the historical think managers (and politicians) to 20 years, producing many open, range. Modern fires will therefore should clearly spell out the pur- “parklike” stands of ponderosa pine. be large and hot. poses of proposed thinning projects. Data from my extensive fire history But where true restoration is the research suggest that 80 years or Stand replacement (SR) I fire more have passed since the last regime. In the stand replacement goal, converting stands into simple natural light underburns. The fire regime, relatively long inter- tree farms—akin to steep corn- heavily disrupted fire pattern is a vals occurred between severe fires fields—would be a big mistake direct result of long-term fire that killed most trees in the stand. ecologically and politically. exclusion; therefore, many stands In the SRI fire regime, fire inter- will die during the next event. vals usually ranged between 100 Healthy Backcountry (Presumably, the same fate befell and 150 years long. Although fire most old-growth ponderosa pine exclusion has not affected most Given the politics, the massive scale stands that burned in the 2000 stands, the practice of continually of fire exclusion in the Northern fires.) extinguishing ignitions over a Rockies, and the limited potential broad area has adversely affected for bona fide restoration through Mixed-severity (MS) I fire regime. some large landscapes. prescribed burning and low-impact The MSI fire regime is a variant of logging, I have to conclude that the nonlethal regime, but fires were SRII fire regime. In this fire ecosystem restoration is unlikely to occasionally more severe. Examples regime, fire intervals usually happen beyond a few demonstration are stands dominated by ponderosa exceeded 200 years in length. A pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch good example of the SRII fire projects. So let’s thank our lucky in western Montana; and dry regime is Yellowstone Park’s stars for the wild backcountry—still Douglas-fir stands in southwestern lodgepole pine forest. some of the least impacted land on Montana. Fires averaged every 25 to the planet! ■ 40 years on such sites, but have not MSIII fire regime. This fire occurred during the past 100 years, regime type occupies the upper on average. Consequently, future tree line, where historical fire wildfires will likely be more severe intervals, severities, and sizes and perhaps larger. exhibit extreme variation. For example, some alpine larch and MSII fire regime. This is a variant whitebark pine stands have gone of the “stand replacement” regime many centuries without fire, (described below). Fires were often whereas nearby trees sometimes contain multiple fire scars. Conse- *Some fire regime classification schemes differ slightly from the one presented here. For the scheme used by quently, high-elevation communi- the USDA Forest Service, see Protecting People and ties show no measurable effect Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A from long-term fire exclusion. Cohesive Strategy (Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service), p. 70.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 27 A CONSISTENT WILDLAND FIRE RISK TERMINOLOGY IS NEEDED!*
Andreas Bachmann and Britta Allgöwer
ven a casual familiarity with the literature related to wildland The success of any organization E fire risk will reveal the inconsis- depends on a clear understanding tent and confusing use of the terms of terms, rules, limits, and conditions. “danger,” “hazard,” and “risk.” Lack of clear definitions can be an obstacle to sound research and affecting the inception, spread, and management. For example, com- “Risking” Redefinitions resistance to control, and subse- puter models and simulations of Current wildland fire glossaries quent fire damage.” This definition “fire danger” or “fire hazard,” if illustrate problems with the defini- conflates fire danger “factors” that based on fuzzy definitions, are tions of “fire danger,” “fire hazard,” are really quite different. For difficult to validate; a comparison of and “fire risk.” The field of technical example, a fire’s inception has to do research results can be impossible if risk engineering offers alternatives. with the probability of its occur- different researchers are really rence, whereas resistance to control talking about different things. Fire Danger. Current glossaries is related to the fire’s outcome. It Moreover, unless firefighters on the define the term “fire danger” very makes more sense to treat each fireline base their actions on broadly. For example, the National factor separately to determine its precisely understood conditions, Wildfire Coordinating Group’s relative contribution to the risk of the consequences might be fatal. Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminol- fire. The term “danger” is too The success of any organization ogy (NWCG 1996) defines fire abstract and subjective to be useful depends on a clear understanding of danger as the “sum of constant for research and management. terms, rules, limits, and conditions. danger and variable danger factors
Quantitative risk analysis in the context of wildland fire manage- NEW DEFINITIONS ment requires a solid basis in a sound terminology that is under- Based on definitions used in technical risk engineering, we propose to stood and shared throughout the redefine the following terms used in wildland fire risk analysis: wildland fire community. First, let’s look at another form of risk man- Danger: Obsolete. Danger is an abstract concept based on perception. agement—the field of technical risk Danger per se does not exist. It is defined by subjective human and engineering—for terminological societal perceptions and assessments of events and outcomes that are options and alternatives to our considered harmful. The concept is useless for wildland fire research current definitions (see sidebar). and management. Then let’s see if they can be usefully applied to wildland fire research. Hazard: A process with undesirable outcomes. Andreas Bachmann is a research assistant and Ph.D. student at the Institute of Wildland fire hazard: A wildland fire with undesirable outcomes. Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; and Britta Allgöwer is a Risk: The probability of an undesired event and its outcome. An research associate at the University of Zurich and leads the geographic informa- undesired event is a realization of a hazard. tion system for the Swiss National Park. Wildland fire risk: The probability of a wildland fire occurring at a * This article is an abbreviated version of a paper published in the proceedings of the Joint Fire Science specified location and under specific circumstances, together with its Conference and Workshop, 15–17 June 1999, Boise, ID. expected outcome as defined by its impacts on the objects it affects.
28 Fire Management Today Wildland fire risk assessment Quantitative Wildland Fire Risk takes into account not only the area burned, For a quantitative analysis, we must but also the value of properties, such as homes operationalize the term “risk” by in the wildland–urban interface. describing the mathematical relationships between probability and outcome and by defining Fire Hazard. Current glossaries causative agencies.” This definition indicators that can be used to define the term “fire hazard” very focuses on fire cause (the probabil- measure their value. Generally, risk narrowly. For example, the Cana- ity of ignition), ignoring fire effects r is defined as the product of the dian Interagency Forest Fire (the likelihood of damage). probability p and the expected Centre’s Glossary of Forest Fire outcome d (Jones 1992; Kumamoto Management Terms (CIFFC 1999) By contrast, in the field of technical and others 1996; Merz and others defines fire hazard as “potential fire risk engineering, risk comprises 1995), as follows: behavior” based on “physical fuel both the likelihood and the out- characteristics (e.g. fuel arrange- come of an event (Jones 1992; r = p × d (1) ment, fuel load, condition of Gheorghe and Nicolet-Monnier herbaceous vegetation, presence of 1996; Merz and others 1995). For The probability p, according to the ladder fuels).” In this definition, example, Hall (1992) refers to axioms of Kolmogorov (1933), is hazard is a set of fuels precondi- structural fire risk as both “a defined for a given time period; for tions for wildland fire behavior. measure of the expected severity example, the occurrence probability (e.g., how many deaths, injuries, of a wildland fire in the next year By contrast, in the domain of dollars or damage per fire)” and “a might be 0.8. Kolmogorov’s axioms technical risk engineering, hazard measure of the probability of do not prescribe how probabilities is more broadly defined as “a occurrence.” Hall’s definition has are determined but define proper- physical situation with a potential the advantage of including both ties and calculation rules that have for human injury, damage to components of fire risk—probabil- to be satisfied. For example, a property, damage to the environ- ity and damage. method resulting in an index of fuel ment or some combination of moisture with an arbitrary scale can these” (Allen 1992). The broader New Definitions. We base our be transformed into an ignition definition has the advantage of wildland fire risk analysis and probability with any appropriate applicability to any process that can assessment on proposed new function. The expected outcome d is lead to damage. In this case, the definitions: a measure or description, such as hazard is wildland fire itself, not “100 acres [40 ha] of highly produc- some subset of preconditions that •We drop the term “fire danger” as tive timber stands burned down” or might or might not lead to fire useless for wildland fire research “increased biological diversity after damage. and management. disturbance.” •We use the term “fire hazard” as a Fire Risk. The term “risk” gener- synonym for the process of Risk deals with future events, which ally has two distinct areas of mean- wildland fire itself. cannot be predicted in a determinis- ing: (1) chance and probability; and •We make “fire risk” our central tic way. Scenarios must be con- (2) loss, harm, and injury (Landau term. Specifically, we address structed to represent possible 1999). Current wildland fire glossa- “quantitative wildland fire risk,” realizations of a hazard (in this ries focus on the former area, embedding the concept of risk in case, a wildland fire). The scenarios neglecting the latter. For example, a risk management process, define all relevant preconditions the United Nations Food and where risk analysis and risk and causes of an event and thus Agriculture Organization’s Wildfire assessment are important steps enable the quantitative determina- Management Terminology (FAO (Bärtsch 1998). Moreover, we use tion of risk. 1986) defines fire risk as “the the value-free term “outcome” to chance of fire starting, as affected describe fire effects, which are not Risk can be seen from two perspec- by the nature and incidence of always negative. tives, subjective and collective. The
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 29 subjective perspective is from a Wildland fire risk analysis focuses on single object exposed to risk, the so- called risk acceptor. The object two general areas: a fire’s probability might be affected by many scenarios of occurrence and its outcome. involving various types of hazards. The collective perspective is from a particular scenario, the so-called Calculating Risk ings—especially important in the risk donor. Each scenario might Let’s apply our definition to a given wildland–urban wildland interface, affect many risk acceptors. The two study area (fig. 1) with a certain where the value of burned timber is perspectives both play a role in number of objects O and scenarios often negligible compared to the assessing risk. For example, al- i value of destroyed homes Sj. For every relation between a though the collective risk might be scenario S and an object O , the (Alexandrian 1997). acceptable, the subjective risk j i individual probability of impact eij might not be, either because the and the individual expected impact The weighting is done through the damage is too great or because the impact probability—that is, the dij at the object is calculated. The probability of one object is too high. risk of a given scenario—that is, the probability that a fire will reach and This case can occur when individual collective wildland fire risk—is affect an object. The impact prob- outcomes and/or probabilities are then: ability is determined through fire unequally distributed. spread. After the fire perimeter of a
n given scenario is known, an indi- e ⋅ d (2) Two problems are specific to rj = pj ⋅Σ ij ij vidual impact probability of 1 is wildland fire risk analysis: spatial i=1 assigned to all objects within the location and impact indicators. The Figure 2 maps the fundamental perimeter. Objects outside the first problem is identifying the relations in the collective risk of a perimeter have an individual impact location. Whereas most technical scenario. The collective risk is the probability of 0 and do not contrib- hazards have fixed locations (for ute to the sum of impacts. product of probability pj that a fire example, a road or power plant), will start at a given location and wildland fires can, in principle, start In a comprehensive risk analysis, expected outcome dj. The expected in any location covered by combus- outcome is a weighted sum of the several scenarios are usually con- tible vegetation. In assessing impacts of the fire on all objects. structed to reflect all relevant cases. wildland fire risk, analysts must This method takes into account not The risk for the whole area is then account for an infinite number of only the area burned, but also the sum of all individual scenario potential locations. valuable properties, such as build- risks. The second problem is selecting relevant impact indicators for various types of affected objects, such as timber or endangered- species habitat. Merz and others (1995) maintain that damages should, whenever possible, be quantified to permit their discus- sion and assessment. Taking the problems of spatial location and impact indicators into account, we define wildland fire risk as the probability of a wildland fire occurring at a specified location and under specific circumstances, together with its expected outcome Figure 1—Hypothetical study area showing relationships between objects and scenarios. as defined by its impacts on the For every relation between a scenario Sj and an object Oi, the individual probability of objects it affects. impact eij and the individual expected impact dij at the object can be calculated. The collective risk of the scenario can then be computed.
30 Fire Management Today 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 When used in wildland fire risk
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Collective Risk 1 analysis, any approach to fire
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012of a Scenario 1 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012⋅ 1 occurrence or fuels complexes 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012pj dj 1 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 should deliver a probability as a
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 result. The probability of occur- 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 rence can be expressed as:
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Expected Outcome 1
1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Probability 1 of Scenario p = p × p (3) 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 j ignition precondition of Scenario n 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012p d Σ e ⋅ d 1 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012j j ij ij 1 i=1 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 where pignition expresses the probabil- 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 ity that any cause starts the wild- 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 land fire and pprecondition is the prob- 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 ability that the fuel complex and 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Individual Individual 1 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 fuel moisture permit a fire to start. 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Impact Probability Expected Outcome 1 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 The product of both probabilities 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012d 1 eij ij 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 assures that if one is zero, the 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 occurrence probability will also be Figure 2—Collective risk of a scenario, the product of the probability p of a fire starting at j zero. a given location, and its expected outcome dj. The expected outcome is a weighted sum of the impacts of the fire on all objects. The weighting is done through the impact probabil- ity—that is, the probability that a fire will reach and affect an object. Outcome. The outcome of a wildland fire is determined by a Research Integration taken for granted as a constant. weighted sum of the impacts on each affected object, with the Wildland fire risk analysis focuses Fuel is the essential precondition; weighting done through impact on two general areas: a fire’s prob- the heat source is the immediate probability (eq. 2). In determining ability of occurrence and its out- cause. Fire cause and fuel condi- impact probability, we are especially come. These are the focal points for tions are the subject of fire occur- interested in the rate of spread the three main wildland fire re- rence research and fire behavior (Viegas and others 1998) and the search areas: fire effects, fire research, respectively. Because the ease of suppression. Accessibility, behavior, and fire occurrence (fig. spatial pattern of natural fire causes now a standard functionality in 3). Risk analysis can thus stimulate is very unpredictable, most fire geographic information systems, interdisciplinary approaches. occurrence research focuses on human activities. Fuel complex can give a useful measure of sup- pression effectiveness, permitting Probability of Occurrence. Flame research has two main components: the overall performance of the depends on three factors (Pyne and fuels classification and fuel mois- firefighting organization in a given others 1996): fuel, a heat source, ture estimation. region to be integrated into the risk and oxygen. Oxygen can usually be analysis. The impact of wildland fires on objects is at the core of fire effects research, which focuses on Wildfire Risk such areas as tree mortality (Ryan Probability 1998), erosion potential (Marxer Outcome Risk of Occurrence and others 1998), and structural
Methodology ignition (Cohen and others 1991). A fire’s impact on an object is a function of fire behavior and the susceptibility of the object to flame. Wildfire Wildfire Wildfire Occurrence Behavior Effects When used in wildland fire risk
Wildfire Research analysis, all impacts must be converted into monetary terms to Figure 3—Risk methodology and wildland fire research. Through its focus on fire outcome permit a collective comparison. and probability of occurrence, quantitative fire risk assessment integrates each of the Monetary conversion is often three major areas in wildland fire research.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 31 difficult for impacts such as erosion When used in risk analysis, all impacts potential or destruction of natural resources such as wildlife habitat. must be converted into monetary terms However, economists are increas- to permit a collective comparison. ingly exploring ways to assign value to nonmarket objects (Cabán 1998). Need for a Robust 41-1-635-68-48 (fax), bachman@ An Analytical geo.unizh.ch (e-mail); or Britta Framework Terminology A robust wildland fire risk terminol- Allgöwer, [email protected] Based on the terminology presented ogy can support a rigorous risk (e-mail). here, Schöning and others (1997) analysis. Risk analysis, in turn, can and Bachmann and Allgöwer (1998) integrate the fields of wildland fire Acknowledgments developed a framework for analyz- research, stimulating interdiscipli- The work reported in this article ing the spatial distribution of nary work. In operational use, risk was funded by the Swiss National wildland fire risk using a geo- analysis can help fire managers Science Foundation (project no. graphic information system. In better understand how the various 21–50842.97) and by the Govern- addition to scenarios and objects, aspects of fire occurrence, fire ment of Switzerland, Federal Office “situations” are used to capture all behavior, and fire effects fit together for Education and Science (EC– risk-relevant parameters (fig. 4), to form the totality of wildland fire. Project INFLAME Nr. ENV4–CT98– such as weather, fuels, precipita- 0700, BBW Nr. 97.0182–2). tion, and holiday activities. Situa- For more information, please tions help to group scenarios. In contact Andreas Bachmann, Geo- Literature Cited any given area, a wildland fire graphic Information Systems might start at an infinite number of Alexandrian, D. 1996. A new method of fire Division, Department of Geography, danger mapping in the forest urban locations. Some spatial discretiza- University of Zurich, Winter- interface. In: Proceedings of the Work- tion (usually rasterizing) is needed shop on Wildfire Management; 3–4 June thurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich, to obtain a finite number of 1996; Athens, Greece. Athens, Greece: Switzerland, 41-1-635-52-52 (tel.), Algosystems S.A. scenarios.
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
Based on fire occurrence research 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 methodology, a probability of 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 ignition is assigned for each loca- 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Scenarios Situations Objects 1
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 tion in the study area, given a 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 particular situation. The probability 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 is then determined for each object 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 affected under a given scenario, 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Fire Occurrence Fire Behavior Fire Effects 1 using appropriate fire behavior 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 models. Finally, based on fire effects 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 research, the amount of damage 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 suffered by each object is estimated 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 under each scenario. The resulting 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Risk Matrix 1
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
parameters are combined in a risk 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 matrix depicting the relations 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 among all scenarios and objects for 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121
12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 a given situation. The matrix 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012Risk caused by Total Risk for each Risk for each 1 permits the calculation of risk 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012each Scenario Situation Object 1 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 characteristics pertaining to sce- 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 narios, objects, and the situation as 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121 Figure 4—Framework for a quantitative wildland fire risk analysis. Scenarios, objects, and a whole. For example, figure 5 situations capture all risk-relevant factors. Each is determined through methodologies shows the expected damage by associated with the three main areas of wildland fire research (fire occurrence, fire scenario and object (buildings). behavior, and fire effects). The resulting parameters are combined in a risk matrix permitting calculation of risk characteristics for scenarios, objects, and the situation as a whole.
32 Fire Management Today Kumamoto, H.; Henley, E.J. 1996. Probabi- Risk analysis can integrate listic risk assessment and management for engineers and scientists. Piscataway, the fields of wildland fire research, NJ: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and stimulating interdisciplinary work. Electronics Engineers) Press. Landau, S.I., ed. 1999. The new interna- tional Webster’s student dictionary of the English language. New York, NY: Trident Allen, F.R. 1992. The management of risk to of the 11th Conference on Fire and Press International. society from potential accidents. London, Forest Meteorology; 16–19 April 1991; Marxer P.; Conedera, M.; Schaub, D. 1998. UK: Elsevier Applied Science. Missoula, MT. Bethesda, MD: Society of Postfire runoff and soil erosion in sweet Bachmann, A.; Allgöwer, B. 1998. A American Foresters: 50–57. chestnut forests in south Switzerland. In: framework for wildfire risk analysis. In: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Proceedings of the IIIrd International Proceedings of the IIIrd International 1986. Wildfire management terminology. Conference on Forest Fire Research, 14th Conference on Forest Fire Research, 14th Terminologie de la lutte contre les Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorol- Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorol- incendies de fôret. Terminología del ogy; 16–20 November 1998; Coimbra, ogy; 16–20 November 1998; Coimbra, control de incendios en tierras incultas. Portugal. Vol. 2. Coimbra, Portugal: ADAI Portugal. Vol. 2. Coimbra, Portugal: ADAI Rome, Italy: United Nations, FAO, Forest (Associação para o Desenvolvimento da (Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Resources Development Branch. Aerodinâmica Industrial): 1317–1331. Aerodinâmica Industrial): 2177–2190. Gheorghe, A.; Nicolet-Monnier, M. 1995. Merz, H.A.; Schneider, T.; Bohnenblust, H. Bärtsch, A. 1998. GIS-analysis for the Integrated regional risk assessment: 1995. Bewertung von technischen concept of a fire management plan in Continuous and non-point source Risiken. Beiträge zur Strukturierung und Swiss National Park. Masters thesis. emissions: Air, water, soil. Vol. 1. zum Stand der Kenntnisse. Modelle zur University of Zurich. Zurich, Switzerland. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Bewertung von Todesfallrisiken. Cabán, A.G. 1998. The importance of Hall, J.R. 1992. Fire risk analysis. In: Polyprojekt Risiko und Sicherheit, Dok. nonmarket values in land and fire Proceedings, Fire Hazard and Fire Risk Nr. 3. Zurich, Switzerland: vdf management planning. In: Proceedings of Assessment; 3 December 1990; San Hochschulverlag AG. the IIIrd International Conference on Antonio, TX. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM NWCG (National Wildfire Coordinating Forest Fire Research, 14th Conference on (American Society for Testing and Group). 1996. Glossary of wildland fire Fire and Forest Meteorology; 16–20 Materials): 21-10–21-18. terminology. PMS 205/NFES 1832. Boise, November 1998; Coimbra, Portugal. Vol. Jones, D.A. 1992. Nomenclature of hazard ID: National Interagency Fire Center. 2. Coimbra, Portugal: ADAI (Associação and risk assessment in the process Pyne, S.J.; Andrews, P.L.; Laven, R.D. 1996. para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinâmica industries. Rugby, Warwickshire, UK: Introduction to wildland fire. New York, Industrial): 2191–2208. Institution of Chemical Engineers. NY: John Wiley and Sons. CIFFC (Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Keetch, J.J.; Byram, G.M. 1968. A drought Ryan, K.C. 1998. Analysis of the relative Centre). 1999. Glossary of fire manage- index for forest fire control. Res. Pap. SE– value of morphological variables in ment terms. Winnipeg: CIFFC. 38. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, predicting fire-caused tree mortality. In: Cohen, J.D.; Chase, R.A.; LeVan, S.L.; Trna, Southern Research Station. Proceedings of the IIIrd International H.C. 1991. A model for assessing Kolmogorov, A.N. 1933. Grundbegriffe der Conference on Forest Fire Research, 14th potential structure ignitions in the Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Berlin, Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorol- wildland/urban interface. In: Proceedings Germany: Springer. ogy; 16–20 November 1998; Coimbra, Portugal. Vol. 2. Coimbra, Portugal: ADAI (Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinâmica Industrial): 1511–1526. Schöning, R.; Bachmann, A.; Allgöwer, B. 1997. GIS-based framework for wildfire risk assessment. Final report for MINERVE 2. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Geography, University of Zurich. Viegas D.X.; Ribeiro P.R.; Cruz M.G. 1998. Characterisation of the combustibility of forest fuels. In: Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference on Forest Fire Research, 14th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology; 16–20 November 1998; Coimbra, Portugal. Vol. 1. Coimbra, Portugal: ADAI (Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinâmica Industrial): 467–482. ■
Figure 5—Example of expected damage to objects and by scenario in Malcantone-Ticino, Switzerland, using a quantitative wildland fire risk analysis.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 33 FIGHTING THE PUMPKIN FIRE—INDIRECT ATTACK AND AERIAL IGNITION
Allen Farnsworth
endrick Mountain is a 10,400- foot (3,200-m), steep-sided Fire managers used indirect attack Kcinder cone that rises dramati- and aerial ignition to reduce the risk cally more than 2,000 feet (610 m) to firefighters and the damage to resources above the surrounding Coconino Plateau in northern Arizona (fig. 1). in a wilderness area. By 2000, after nearly 100 years of fire exclusion, excessive fuel loading had primed the mountain for a and mixed-conifer forest into the burn, the incident management devastating fire. Scientists from western portion of the Kendrick team wanted it to be a low-intensity Northern Arizona University in Mountain Wilderness. Fire manag- fire to reduce the risk to firefighters Flagstaff, AZ, estimated that stand ers soon realized that the fire would and the damage to resources. Fire density was 10 to 15 times greater reach most of the 6,700-acre (2,700- managers began to develop a plan than before European settlement. ha) wilderness area. to use aerial ignition within the wilderness and to prepare an Proposals were introduced to The area was under extreme fire indirect fireline with mechanized manage fire and natural ignitions to danger. On May 25, the Flagstaff equipment outside the wilderness. replicate the natural nonlethal fire National Fire Danger Rating Station regime. However, because of recorded dead fuel moisture for 1- The Wildland Fire Situation Analy- wilderness values, threatened and hour fuels at 2 percent, 10-hour sis determined that because of endangered species, opposition to fuels at 5 percent, 100-hour fuels at extreme fire behavior, concern for introducing managed fire into a 5 percent, and 1,000-hour fuels at 9 firefighter safety, available fire- wilderness, and a lack of funding, a percent. If the wilderness had to fighting resources, heavy fuels, fire management plan was never developed for the Kendrick Moun- tain Wilderness. Pumpkin Fire Sizeup On May 24, 2000, a lightning strike ignited the Pumpkin Fire (named for the nearby settlement of Pump- kin Center) 1 mile (1.6 km) south- west of the Kendrick Mountain Wilderness on the Kaibab National Forest, about 20 miles (32 km) northwest of Flagstaff. By May 25, with a 10- to 20-mile-per-hour (4–8 m/s) southwest wind blowing, the Pumpkin Fire had spread more than 5 miles (8 km) from where it had begun through ponderosa pine Figure 1—Southeast face of Kendrick Mountain on June 3, 2000, showing cloudlike smoke Allen Farnsworth is a prescribed fire plumes from the Pumpkin Fire. The mountain rises 2,000 feet (610 m) above the surround- specialist for the USDA Forest Service, ing Coconino Plateau on the Kaibab National Forest in northern Arizona. Photo: Allen Coconino National Forest, Peaks and Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Peaks and Mormon Lake Mormon Lake Ranger Districts, Flagstaff, AZ. Ranger Districts, Flagstaff, AZ, 2000.
34 Fire Management Today Removing snags quickly and safely private land adjacent to the wilder- ness. To achieve these objectives, helps keep fire intensities low, firefighters needed favorable aerial- with less likelihood of crowning and spotting. ignition conditions and timber- harvesting equipment and person- nel to prepare an indirect fireline difficult terrain, and weather the analysis was to reduce the effect for burnout operations. conditions, an indirect attack posed of fire in wilderness and nonwilder- the least risk to firefighters and had ness areas by using low-intensity Fireline Preparation the highest probability of success. fire to secure indirect firelines. A Flagstaff-based logging company, One objective that emerged from Another objective was to protect under a fire suppression contract with the USDA Forest Service, dispatched a feller/buncher, a bulldozer, two skidders, and two fallers to the Pumpkin Fire on May 26. A Forest Service timber sale administrator was the company liaison.
The first assignment for the equip- ment operators was to prepare the fuels next to a road on the north- east side of the fire for a burnout operation and to protect an 80-acre (32-ha) parcel of private land, with structures adjacent to the wilder- ness boundary. With the dense stands of ponderosa pine in the area, the feller/buncher was the best tool available to thin dense thickets along the road and private land boundary.
The two skidders piled the trees that were cut by the feller/buncher and removed downed logs and old pitchy stumps. The fireline and mechanized fuel manipulation along the private property boundary effectively kept the fire off the private land and minimized scorch- ing and mortality to the stands of ponderosa pine and mixed conifers surrounding the private property (fig. 2). When the summer mon- soon started in late June, erosion from runoff in this treated area was mitigated—an indirect benefit from the fuel manipulation. Figure 2—Night burnout (top) along a forest road following mechanical treatment to prepare indirect firelines on the Pumpkin Fire. Scorching and mortality to the residual Next, the equipment operators stand (bottom) were minimal. Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino removed and reduced fuels along a National Forest, Peaks and Mormon Lake Ranger Districts, Flagstaff, AZ, 2000.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 35 road system on the east, south, and Hotshot crews that worked with the southwest sides of the wilderness boundary and the fire. The proce- feller/buncher were enthusiastic about dures they used had the following the performance, safety, and results. advantages:
• Feller/bunchers cut a low, incon- be 20 to 35 percent in the south- A lookout tower was on the summit spicuous stump; facing stands, compared to about 80 of Kendrick Mountain, with a •Trees skidded under dry-season percent if the fire were allowed to historic cabin directly below and to conditions pulverized and re- spread on its own. the east of it. Vegetation on this duced needle cast, grass, and portion of the mountain consisted other ground fuels; The weather forecast called for of mixed-conifer stands of spruce, • Skidders—mobile, fast, and less breezy daytime southwest winds, limber pine, and Douglas-fir, damaging than bulldozers—are with a chance for strong southwest together with small aspen stands. useful during burnout operations winds in the extended forecast. A Ground fuels were spotty and for suppressing spot fires; written aerial ignition plan was broken up by talus slopes. • Piled trees could be sold or developed daily that included dispersed around the burned area preferred direction of travel, air- The team knew that successful for erosion control or wildlife speed, number and speed of chutes firing at the top of the mountain habitat; for the plastic sphere dispenser, depended on using a precise •Hand crews could be used to pile number of plastic spheres, and a amount of fire. Too much fire would fuels for the skidders to move map. The team flew a reconnais- produce a high-intensity crown fire outside the fireline; sance flight each day at 5 p.m. to that would destroy the stands and • Selectively thinning the dense prepare the final details for the threaten the lookout and historic ponderosa pine along the fireline plan, which was implemented cabin. The right amount of fire let the heat from the firing approximately one-half hour before would carry through the stands but operation escape through open- sunset. Several practice runs were leave the canopy untouched. For ings in the canopy, reducing flown during the 5 p.m. reconnais- the first several nights, aerial crews scorching and mortality; and sance, with additional practice runs ignited only a single strip below the • Feller/bunchers cut hundreds of just before the final sunset run. tower. When the fire was approxi- snags along the fireline faster and mately a quarter mile (0.4 km) safer than crews could using below the tower, four strips spaced chain saws. 660 feet (200 m) apart were ignited. DELAYED AERIAL This action successfully generated Aerial Ignition IGNITION DEVICES enough fire to reduce ground fuels, By June 3, the Pumpkin Fire had with only isolated canopy torching. burned 12,000 acres (4,900 ha) and One method of ignition is by was well established on the west, aircraft equipped with dispens- Next, the team dropped one line of north, and east sides of Kendrick ers for dropping plastic spheres aerial ignition devices from the Mountain. Fire managers decided known as delayed aerial igni- lowest point of the fire contouring not to allow the fire to spread on its tion devices. The dispenser has across to the next lowest point on own to the south face of Kendrick three chutes that the spheres the fire in as straight a line as Mountain, but rather to conduct a are dropped into at either a possible. This allowed the fire to burnout operation on the south slow or a fast release speed. On back downslope overnight and to face to manage the fire intensity the ground, the spheres emit continue downslope into the wind there. To ensure firefighter safety potassium permanganate the next day (fig. 3). The usual and reduce resource damage, the injected with ethyleneglycol to backing rate of spread over a 24- incident management team chose create a delayed chemical hour period is 520 to 1,320 feet an aerial ignition plan using de- thermal reaction. The resulting (160–400 m). layed ignition devices (see sidebar). flame consumes the chemicals With aerial ignition, managers and containers, igniting The aerial ignition was completed estimated that tree mortality would surrounding fuels. on the evening of the June 7. The fire edge was straightened out and
36 Fire Management Today brought to the bottom of the slope. From this point, hand crews quickly completed the ignition to the indirect line before high winds created dangerous conditions on the afternoon of the June 8 (fig. 4). Results The aerial ignition and mechanized line preparation for the indirect attack succeeded. The safety record was exceptional—none of the more than 1,000 firefighters reported any serious injuries. Private property was protected and buffered from heavy erosion damage by the fuel reduction and low-intensity fires. Archeologists determined that minimal damage had occurred to the more than 100 prehistoric and historic sites in the fire suppression area. The team achieved incident objectives under severe fire weather conditions because of firefighter professionalism. Through careful planning and coordination, fire- fighters executed many complex tactics safely and on time.
The entire Kendrick Mountain Wilderness burned—only a few small areas were untouched by fire. The final fire perimeter encom- passed 15,800 acres (6,400 ha), with 1,000 acres (400 ha) unburned within the perimeter. Fire intensi- ties throughout the areas ignited by hand and air remained in the low- to-moderate range, with only pockets of high-intensity fire. Preliminary observations indicated that actual tree mortality was less than 20 percent on the south face of Kendrick Mountain. The Future The Pumpkin Fire offers consider- able opportunities for fire effects research and monitoring (fig. 5). Figure 3—South face of Kendrick Mountain after three (top), four (middle), and five Opportunities for study, just to (bottom) evenings of aerial ignition. Delayed aerial ignition devices were dropped from the lowest point of the fire contouring across to the next lowest point, allowing the fire to back name a few, include aspen regen- downslope. Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, eration, long-term conifer fire Peaks and Mormon Lake Ranger Districts, Flagstaff, AZ, 2000.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 37 mortality, and postfire use of the buffer wilderness fires. Nature For more on the Pumpkin Fire, wilderness by Mexican spotted owl. intervened in May 2000. Now, contact Allen Farnsworth, USDA An effective monitoring program humans must develop a fire man- Forest Service, Coconino National will help guide future management agement plan to perpetuate the Forest, Peaks Ranger District, 5075 decisions for this and other wilder- natural fire regime in this wilder- N. Highway 89, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, ness areas. The rich opportunities ness. 520-527-8227 (voice), afarnsworth for studying the Pumpkin Fire @fs.fed.us (e-mail). ■ demonstrate the need for prefire baseline studies in wilderness areas to better document fire effects.
Renewed fire exclusion in the Kendrick Mountain Wilderness will only revive the vicious cycle of unnatural fuel buildups and un- characteristic fire effects. Unless extenuating circumstances exist, future suppression of natural fires in this wilderness should not occur. Additionally, the area burned outside the wilderness should be maintained with periodic burns to
RITICAL ABITAT C H Figure 4—Aerial and ground ignition completed. The operation was conducted safely and CONSERVED effectively, keeping tree mortality to less than 20 percent. Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Peaks and Mormon Lake Ranger Districts, Flagstaff, AZ, 2000. Burned over by the 2000 Pumpkin Fire, Kendrick Mountain in northern Arizona has four Protected Activity Centers for the Mexican spotted owl, a threatened species. In the Biological Assessment Emergency Con- sultation for the fire, the incident biologist wrote, “Objectives included protection of threatened species habitat to the greatest extent possible without compromising safety of the firefighters and public. This objective was met, par- ticularly with the aerial igni- tion and backing fires con- ducted to prevent stand re- placement and reduce the Figure 5—Arizona fescue and bracken ferns regenerating on Kendrick Mountain 48 days after the Pumpkin Fire started. Following the fire, fire-dependent plants flourished in this spread of the fire to the north, fire-dependent ecosystem, offering abundant opportunities for study. Photo: Allen east and southerly directions.” Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Peaks and Mormon Lake Ranger Districts, Flagstaff, AZ, 2000.
38 Fire Management Today SIX NATIONAL FIRE USE AWARDS PRESENTED FOR 1998 AND 1999
David L. Bunnell
he national awards for wildland fire use and prescribed fire The National Fire Use Awards T applications, established in are bestowed annually in recognition 1995 by the USDA Forest Service of extraordinary contributions to the advancement Chief’s Office under leadership from the Director of Fire and Aviation of fire use for ecosystem health. Management, are designed to recognize units, groups, and individuals in the Forest Service – Group Research Award Unit Award 1998 who have advanced the science, art, (1999)—Steve Arno, Rocky The 1998 National Fire Use Award and/or acceptance of fire use Mountain Research Station, for unit excellence went to the fire programs for ecosystem health.* Missoula, MT; Steve Sackett, management team on the Cherokee Individual awardees may receive up Pacific Southwest Research National Forest, Cleveland, TN. to $1,000 and units or groups up to Station, Riverside, CA; and Dale Team members are District and $2,500. Award winners also receive Wade, Southern Research Zone Fire Management Officers an oak plaque that is laser engraved Station, Athens, GA; Marty Bentley, Rex Kelley, Ronnie with a uniquely designed prescribed • Individual Accomplishment Lintz, Fred Locke, Roby Phillippi, fire scene overlaid with a silver drip Awards— Ed Stiles, Guy Street, and Bill torch emblem. – 1998: Paul Tiné, Superior Woody. National Forest, Grand Rapids, Peer groups select the award MN; and The team has developed and winners based on nominations – 1999: David McCandliss, Pine implemented an aggressive, sophis- made through the regional Fire and Ridge Ranger District, Sierra ticated prescribed burning program Aviation Management directors. National Forest, Clovis, CA. to improve ecosystem management. The 1998 and 1999 awards were presented to:
• Unit Awards— – 1998: Cherokee National Forest, Fire Management Team, Cleveland, TN; – 1999: Francis Marion National Forest, Hurricane Hugo Fuel Treatment Team, Columbia, SC; – Program Support Award (1998)—George Matejko, Salmon–Challis National Forest, Salmon, ID;
Dave Bunnell is the national fire use program manager, USDA Forest Service, The Fire Management Team on the Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN, winner of the National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 1998 National Fire Use Award for unit excellence. The team has developed and imple- mented an aggressive, sophisticated prescribed burning program to improve ecosystem * For the full basis for the national fire use awards, see management. From left are Ronnie Lintz, Rex Kelley, Guy Street, Ed Stiles, Roby Phillippi, David L. Bunnell, “National Prescribed Fire Awards Recognize Excellence,” Fire Management Notes 56(4): Bill Woody, and Fred Locke. Not pictured is Marty Bentley. Photo: John Stivers, USDA 12–13. Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA, 2000.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 39 Using both aerial and ground ignition and mobilizing support from volunteers, contractors, detailers, college students, and other forests and agencies, the team burned more than 24,000 acres (9,700 ha) on complex landscapes containing a wide variety of slopes, aspects, and elevations, with a range of timber types and age classes. This type of collaborative effort was precedent setting in the Appala- chian Mountains.
Prescribed burning has become the The Hurricane Hugo Fuel Treatment Team on the Francis Marion National Forest, vegetation management tool of Columbia, SC, winner of the 1999 National Fire Use Award for unit excellence. The team choice to restore, maintain, and has continued a vital prescribed burning program surrounded by the devastation caused by Hurricane Hugo. From left are Herman White, Shawn Schuler, George Stroman, Marie enhance strategies for fire-depen- Butler, Bill Twomey, Joe Benton, Steve Dix, Olga Caballero, and Robbie Risley. Not dent and fire-adapted ecological pictured are Rebecca Ashley, Willie Irving, William Weldon, and Ricky Wrenn. Photo: communities on the Cherokee Stephanie Neal Johnson, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA, 2000. National Forest. Shortleaf, pitch, and table mountain pines, oak– Team, Francis Marion National downed fuel immediately made fires hickory stands, and mixes of these Forest, Columbia, SC. Team mem- difficult to control and extinguish. types occur on more than half the bers are Rebecca Ashley, Joe Since 1994, the buildup of decaying forest—300,000 acres (120,000 ha). Benton, Marie Butler, Olga Cabal- fuels has made them easy to ig- Many stands in these ecological lero, Steve Dix, Willie Irving, nite—even during periods of low communities are threatened by: Robbie Risley, Shawn Shuler, fire danger. When ignited, the George Stroman, Bill Twomey, punky fuel releases copious amount •Hazardous fuel buildups; William Weldon, Herman White, of smoke for long periods. A com- • Potential stand replacement of and Ricky Wrenn. plex smoke management program stable, fire-adapted species by less exists in the area’s wildland–urban ecologically sustainable types; The team continued a comprehen- interface. •Native and exotic forest pests; and sive, vital prescribed burning • Encroachment by exotic, invasive program surrounded by the devas- Fire’s functional role in restoring vegetation. tation caused in 1989 by Hurricane habitat and maintaining diversity Hugo. The ambitious program is within landscapes is well under- The fire management officers on based on the team’s strong belief stood. Periodic fire sustains the the forest are prime examples of that prescribed fire is the most integrity of the longleaf pine and innovative leadership by individuals effective and efficient tool available red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. charged with accomplishing com- to reduce enormous fuel loads and On the Francis Marion National plex management tasks. Working to restore fire-adapted and fire- Forest, controlling rapid midstory ensure success through well- dependent ecosystems—especially development facilitates the recovery planned operations and partner- the longleaf pine ecosystem. plan for the red-cockaded wood- ships, the prescribed burning pecker and meets an objective of program on the Cherokee National Hurricane Hugo caused extreme the forest plan by restoring longleaf Forest achieves forest health timber breakage over about 250,000 pine. through sound land management. acres (100,000 ha) on the Francis Marion National Forest. The hurri- On a landscape affected by one of Unit Award 1999 cane left a swath of more than 1 the most severe natural disasters in The 1999 National Fire Use Award billion board feet of felled timber, recent history, employees on the for unit excellence went to the approximately one-third of which Francis Marion National Forest Hurricane Hugo Fuel Treatment was salvaged. The large amount of accomplish 30,000 to 35,000 acres
40 Fire Management Today (12,000–14,000 ha) of prescribed Where conditions warrant, fire use is burns annually in the wildland– urban interface. The success of the becoming the vegetation management tool program is due to the cohesion and of choice for restoring ecosystem health, dedication of the Hurricane Hugo thanks to farsighted leadership in recent decades. Fuel Treatment Team.
Program Support ha) acres, all on the Salmon–Challis bined careers, the three scientists Award 1998 National Forest. Although the use have devoted about 100 years to George Matejko, forest supervisor of wildland fire is difficult to plan, examining various research ques- on the Salmon–Challis National with outcomes that are highly tions related to fire and using Forest, Salmon, ID, and winner of weather dependent, the success of prescribed fire in the Southeastern the 1998 National Fire Use Award the burning program on the and Western United States. To- for program support, has provided Salmon–Challis National Forest gether, they have produced more outstanding leadership and support continues to grow under Matejko’s than 250 publications and 200 for the development of the forest’s demonstrated leadership. presentations on fire and prescribed aggressive and sustainable fire use fire. Additionally, Arno, Sackett, and program. Over the past few years, Group Research Award Wade have devoted countless hours Matejko has emphasized the impor- 1999 to training individuals and groups tance of using fire as a resource The 1999 National Fire Use Award about prescribed fire and fuels. management tool. Consequently, for group research went to Forest the forest’s burning program Service scientists Steve Arno, Rocky Arno, Sackett, and Wade began increased from 4,300 acres (1,700 Mountain Research Station, researching prescribed burning 10 ha) in fiscal year (FY) 1997 to 9,700 Missoula, MT; Steve Sackett, Pacific to 15 years before the Forest acres (3,900 ha) in FY 1998, fol- Southwest Research Station, Service officially accepted the lowed by a dramatic expansion to Riverside, CA; and Dale Wade, process in the late 1970s as a 29,000 acres (11,700 ha) in FY Southern Research Station, Athens, vegetation management tool. Today, 1999. GA. Over the span of their com- through their efforts, the United
Through progressive leadership, Matejko has restored fire as an integral part of the ecosystem in Idaho’s Frank Church–River of No Return Wilderness. Recognizing that lightning-caused fires have a natural vegetative disturbance role in wilderness areas, the Forest Service has long managed some lightning-caused fires to achieve resource benefits, if the location, risks to property, public safety, weather factors, and other condi- tions are within prescribed limits. In 1998, Matejko promoted the management of a complex of lightning fires for wildland fire use (WFU), known as the Main Salmon Complex. The complex consisted of Winners of the 1999 National Fire Use Award for group research are, from left, Dale Wade, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA; Steve Sackett, Pacific Southwest Research 16 WFU fires, which burned 21,600 Station, Riverside, CA; and Steve Arno, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. acres (8,700 ha). In 1999, Matejko The three Forest Service scientists have devoted a combined 100 years to research related helped manage 13 additional WFU to wildland and prescribed fire in the Southeastern and Western United States. Together, they have produced more than 250 publications and 200 presentations. Photo: Jane fires, which burned 12,700 (5,100 Rohling, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID, 2000.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 41 States uses and studies prescribed a comprehensive picture of the basic ecological research, he has fire over extended periods at potential effects of prescribed fire, examined the comparative costs and unique, long-term research sites. Sackett has examined the impact of efficiency of prescribed fire, herbi- Research topics examined by these prescribed fire on several different cides, and mechanical treatments. scientists cover all aspects of ecosystem components, including Through the efforts of Sackett and prescribed fire, including its inter- soil, plant cover and composition, Wade, we are beginning to under- actions with ecosystem manage- nutrient cycling, smoke, and stand the long-term effects of ment, role in biological communi- cultural resources. repeated prescribed fire use in ties, and ability to mimic natural southern and southwestern pine fire regimes. Wade has conducted research in the systems. Southern United States—princi- Arno pioneered the development pally in the southern pine ecosys- Arno, Sackett, and Wade have and transfer of methodologies to tems. Because prescribed burning devoted their Forest Service careers determine the role of fire in the has been widely used in the South- to providing support and leadership evolution and maintenance of ern United States, Wade’s research through science and education to landscape-level processes and the has focused on understanding the advance the use of prescribed fire in use of fire in the restoration and various influences of prescribed fire ecosystem management. Recog- maintenance of fire-dependent to develop prescriptions for accom- nized as experts in prescribed ecosystems. Managers and scientists plishing a variety of ecosystem burning, these scientists have routinely use his methods to management objectives. Besides contributed to the wider and wiser determine the historical range of variation in ecosystem disturbance and to document departure from historic patterns. This information provides the basis for prescribing the frequency and severity of fire treatment necessary for restoration of ecosystem structure and func- tion. Arno is the recognized author- ity in the Intermountain West on the vegetative dynamic associated with fire-dependent ecosystems. His work in developing fire history and landscape disturbance mosaic methods is the standard used by land managers and other scientists.
Sackett determined the appropriate burning interval to reduce hazard- ous-fuel accumulations in the palmetto–gallberry fuel complex of the lower southeastern Coastal Plain. The natural fire regime for southwestern ponderosa pine gave Sackett a starting point for re- Paul Tiné, winner of the 1998 National Fire Use Award for individual accomplishment, searching the use of prescribed fire flanked by his wife, Sherry Phillips, and by (left) Fire and Aviation Management Director to reduce fuel hazards in this forest José Cruz (retired) and (right) then-Acting Director Harry Croft. Tiné, a fuels specialist for type. In recent years, he has focused the Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN, has demonstrated national leadership in on the effects of fire reintroduction developing and implementing a fire use plan for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota. Photo: Dennis Neitzke, USDA Forest Service, Superior National into western ecosystems. To provide Forest, Duluth, MN, 2000.
42 Fire Management Today use of prescribed fire in the United team’s assessment will help to Individual States. amend the existing fire use and Accomplishment preparedness plans and to restore Award 1999 ecosystem form and function. Individual The 1999 National Fire Use Award Accomplishment for individual accomplishment went Tiné demonstrated a unique ability Award 1998 to Dave McCandliss, fuels specialist to deal with diverse interest groups The 1998 National Fire Use Award for the Kings River District, Sierra and individuals to foster collabora- for individual accomplishment went National Forest, Sanger, CA. tion and improve understanding of to Paul Tiné, fuels specialist for the McCandliss led in developing a fire’s natural role in the Lake States Superior National Forest, Duluth, prescribed fire program for the ecosystems. He has developed and MN. Tiné has demonstrated na- forest, which had conducted no presented various multimedia talks tional leadership in developing and underburning during the previous and shows, professional discussions, implementing a wildland fire use decade and had a treatment target community meetings, and other plan for the Boundary Waters Canoe for natural fuels of only 40 acres (16 public information and education Area Wilderness (BWCAW) in ha) per year. programs to help the public under- Minnesota—a national treasure of stand that fire is a critical and immense significance. Since 1999, In the early 1990s, episodic drought integral part of many northern Tiné has managed 45 fires for and insect mortality required habitats. Tiné has been a tireless wildland fire use, treating a total of extensive salvage logging in low- advocate for restoring fire’s natural 10,000 acres (4,000 ha). Addition- elevation ponderosa pine and and historical role in the BWCAW ally, he is pursuing an amendment mixed-conifer stands on the Sierra ecosystem and is recognized as a to the wilderness fire use plan to National Forest. Slash accumula- foremost wildland fire use program allow for management-ignited fire tions made piling ineffective or advocate for the entire Northeast. in designated wilderness areas on the National Forest System.
The BWCAW sustained a massive storm on July 4, 1999, causing blowdown of more than 30 percent of the forested area. The total area affected by the storm was more than three times the area affected by the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. Tiné coordinated and was responsible for a fire analysis organization, including a compre- hensive fuel and fire preparedness assessment, in the blowdown and adjoining wildland–urban interface areas. He assembled a team of national experts in fuels and fire behavior, including preeminent research scientists, to provide critical baseline information and Dave McCandliss (left) accepting the 1999 National Fire Use Award for individual accom- documentation for the Superior plishment from Fire Management Officer Gary Thompson. McCandliss, a fuels specialist National Forest. Under his leader- for the Kings River District, Sierra National Forest, Sanger, CA, helped implement a ship, immediate action was taken to landscape-level approach to slash treatment on the forest, including prescribed fire. Photo: Dave Kohut, USDA Forest Service, Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA, 2000. safeguard lives and property during the storm recovery work. The
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 43 uneconomical, and biomass use was to restore fire cycles, reduce land- Future Fire Use not an option. McCandliss realized scape flammability, meet increas- Program Awards that a landscape-level approach to ingly restrictive air quality stan- Nominations for the National Fire slash treatment was necessary in dards, and increase prescribed fire Use Awards are due each year on this area of highly flammable fuels use to ensure ecosystem January 31. For nomination forms adjacent to the wildland–urban sustainability. and information on how to nomi- interface. nate units, groups, or individuals As McCandliss developed his perso- for excellence in prescribed fire Working with other district special- nal skills and knowledge about management, contact your regional ists, McCandliss developed and natural fire regimes and restoring director or Dave Bunnell, National implemented a plan to underburn fire, he collaborated with district Interagency Fire Center, 3833 6,000 acres (2,400 ha). McCandliss fire personnel, other district spe- South Development Avenue, Boise, has also provided essential fire- cialists, and Pacific Southwest ID 83705-5354; 208-387-5218 related information about the researchers and scientists, sharing (voice); 208-387-5398 (fax); 64,000-acre (25,900-ha) Kings River information and ideas. McCandliss [email protected] (e-mail). ■ research study area. He has experi- is an excellent example of leader- mented with techniques and timing ship in fire management programs.
GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS Editorial Policy information also. Authors who are affiliated of the manuscript, include clear, thorough Fire Management Today (FMT) is an interna- should submit a camera-ready logo for their figure and photo captions labeled in the same tional quarterly magazine for the wildland fire agency, institution, or organization. way as the corresponding material (figure 1, 2, community. FMT welcomes unsolicited 3; photograph A, B, C; etc.). Captions should manuscripts from readers on any subject related Style. Authors are responsible for using make photos and illustrations understandable to fire management. Because space is a wildland fire terminology that conforms to the without reading the text. For photos, indicate consideration, long manuscripts might be latest standards set by the National Wildfire the name and affiliation of the photographer abridged by the editor, subject to approval by the Coordinating Group under the National and the year the photo was taken. author; FMT does print short pieces of interest Interagency Incident Management System. FMT to readers. uses the spelling, capitalization, hyphenation, Electronic Files. Please label all disks carefully and other styles recommended in the United with name(s) of file(s) and system(s) used. If the Submission Guidelines States Government Printing Office Style manuscript is word-processed, please submit a Submit manuscripts to either the general Manual, as required by the U.S. Department of 3-1/2 inch, IBM-compatible disk together with manager or the managing editor at: Agriculture. Authors should use the U.S. system the paper copy (see above) as an electronic file of weight and measure, with equivalent values in one of these formats: WordPerfect 5.1 for USDA Forest Service in the metric system. Try to keep titles concise DOS; WordPerfect 7.0 or earlier for Windows 95; Attn: April J. Baily, F&AM Staff and descriptive; subheadings and bulleted Microsoft Word 6.0 or earlier for Windows 95; P.O. Box 96090 material are useful and help readability. As a Rich Text format; or ASCII. Digital photos may Washington, DC 20090-6090 general rule of clear writing, use the active voice be submitted but must be at least 300 dpi and tel. 202-205-0891, fax 202-205-1272 (e.g., write, “Fire managers know…” and not, “It accompanied by a high-resolution (preferably Internet e-mail: [email protected] is known…”). Provide spellouts for all laser) printout for editorial review and quality abbreviations. Consult recent issues (on the control during the printing process. Do not USDA Forest Service World Wide Web at
Paper Copy. Type or word-process the Photos and Illustrations. Figures, illustra- Release Authorization. Non-Federal Govern- manuscript on white paper (double-spaced) on tions, overhead transparencies (originals are ment authors must sign a release to allow their one side. Include the complete name(s), title(s), preferable), and clear photographs (color slides work to be in the public domain and on the affiliation(s), and address(es) of the author(s), as or glossy color prints are preferable) are often World Wide Web. In addition, all photos and well as telephone and fax numbers and e-mail essential to the understanding of articles. illustrations require a written release by the information. If the same or a similar manuscript Clearly label all photos and illustrations (figure photographer or illustrator. The author, photo, is being submitted elsewhere, include that 1, 2, 3, etc.; photograph A, B, C, etc.). At the end and illustration release forms are available from General Manager April Baily.
44 Fire Management Today THE 1910 FIRES: A NEW BOOK BY STEPHEN J. PYNE
Hutch Brown
ext to Smokey Bear, the most familiar name in America’s Pyne’s book goes against the grain Nwildland fire organization is of history, exposing uncomfortable truths probably Ed Pulaski. Those who behind our founding myths. know the pulaski firefighting tool also know the man who invented it and the story that brought him in other places. Pyne writes about subject for Pyne since Fire in fame. Pulaski’s tale is the central all the fires, moving with the fire America: A Cultural History of story of the Big Blowup of 1910, an season month by month through Wildland and Rural Fire, his event often invoked for fireline the year. seminal work in 1982. inspiration or institutional self- validation. Pulaski’s story makes us As usual with Pyne’s books, the The little-known 1910 Baudette all proud. story unfolds in a broad context of Fire in northern Minnesota, for fire ecology and social, political, example, also burned more than a But maybe it shouldn’t. Maybe it and cultural history. The book million acres, taking 42 lives. isn’t even his story, at least not one contains multiple gems, such as a Comparing it to the Big Blowup, that Pulaski himself, a modest man, clear and concise explanation of fire Pyne notes that the Baudette Fire— ever celebrated. Stephen J. Pyne’s weather. The centerpiece, of course, the last fire to burn more than a new book Year of the Fires: The remains the Big Blowup; but it is million acres in the Great Lakes Story of the Great Fires of 1910 only one piece in the larger puzzle region—signaled the end of the (Viking, 2001) makes that clear. of American fire history, a central great “settlement fires.” Settlement Like all great historical writing, Pyne’s book goes against the grain of history, exposing uncomfortable truths behind our founding myths. That’s what makes it so valuable. A Year of Great Fires Pyne’s book is about much more than the Big Blowup. 1910 was a whole year of great fires, reaching in a vast arc from California to Washington to Minnesota. No one knows how many acres burned, but Pyne hypothesizes that 40 to 50 million (16–20 million ha) is not an unreasonable estimate. More than a million of those acres (400,000 ha) burned on August 20–21, the two days of the Big Blowup in the northern Rocky Mountains; the rest “Effects of hurricane and fire in a heavy stand of white pine on the Little North Fork of the burned at other times and (mostly) St. Joe River,” Coeur d’Alene National Forest, ID. Eyewitnesses reported a “hurricane” before the 1910 Big Blowup, with winds strong enough to topple mature trees. Pyne concludes that strong winds associated with a passing front blew up smoldering fires— Hutch Brown is the managing editor of Fire including backfires from previous firefighting efforts—into multiple firestorms on August Management Today, USDA Forest Service, 20–21. Photo: Courtesy of National Agricultural Library, Special Collections, Forest Washington Office, Washington, DC. Service Photograph Collection, Beltsville, MD (1910; 43815).
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 45 phy. The weaving is deliberate and skillful. No single narrative takes center stage, as Pulaski’s does for most of us today. And that is Pyne’s point: The heroic narrative we know so well, the one that, over and over, has revalidated our fire control mission, is not the true story of the 1910 fires. Fire Control Mythology Pyne’s message is that the heroic narrative that emerged from the Big Blowup is an artifact, a cultural construct created in the fires’ Aftermath of the 1910 Big Blowup in Wallace, ID, where some 200 buildings burned. The smoldering aftermath to serve fight to save the town is only one of many tales interwoven in Pyne’s new book Year of the political and institutional purposes. Fires. Photo: Courtesy of National Agricultural Library, Special Collections, Forest Service The narrative helped make fire Photograph Collection, Beltsville, MD (1910; 43823). control central to the Forest fires were associated with land shaped our modern understanding Service’s mission. The following clearing, farming, railroads, and of wildland fires and our culture of year, a hitherto floundering Weeks other frontier and rural activities wildland firefighting. Act sailed through Congress, that vastly increased fuels and setting the stage for the Forest ignition opportunities. As agrarian In telling the story, Pyne weaves an Service to become the national conditions gave way to industrial- intricate tale from sources re- coordinator for fire protection. The ization, opportunities for large fires searched over many years—Forest epic tale subsequently molded our faded and the great settlement fires Service records, personal letters and view of wildland fire as an enemy to ended. accounts, and U.S. Army reports by be fought in military fashion by officers on fire duty. Characters pop heroes who gave their all and New Firefighting Model in and out of the narrative as Pyne sometimes paid the ultimate price. “If the Baudette Burn was the last shifts to another topic, event, area, Above all, it virtually decided the million-acre burn from a century of or crew; a list of principal charac- debate against light burning in great settlement fires,” Pyne ters at the beginning of the book favor of fire exclusion. It ensured observes, “the Big Blowup was the helps the reader keep track. A that our institutional culture of fire first in a century of fire fought in continuous thread is the story of would become, as Pyne puts it, “a wildlands.” The Big Blowup blew Will Morris, pieced together from culture of fire suppression.” out of the backcountry in the personal letters that the young sparsely settled Interior West; a Forest Service employee wrote from What finally happened to Ed reason it killed at least 78 fire- Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene National Pulaski? Temporarily blinded and fighters in the United States (the Forest—hardest hit by the Big suffering from postfire pulmonary Canadian Rockies, Pyne points out, Blowup—to his family in Chicago, problems, he recovered and re- had no fatalities) is that the fledg- IL. turned to work on his ranger ling Forest Service, already steeped district. Shunning celebrity, he in the doctrine of fire control, Each story—Morris’s, Joe Halm’s, quietly tended the graves of those fought to suppress every fire. The Ed Pulaski’s, the Lost Crew’s, and who died. We can still be proud of Big Blowup tested a new model of all the rest—stands on its own, yet Pulaski—but less for his vaunted firefighting: fire control not to all are interwoven in snippets that heroism than for his quiet compe- protect threatened towns through are constantly interrupted. Discur- tence, his self-effacing personal settler militias, but on public sive interludes further break up the integrity, and his dedication to the wildlands through backcountry fire narrative, telescoping out from a land. We can be proud to support an crews. By validating their sacrifice firefight, for example, to its broader on-the-ground tradition that after the fact, the Big Blowup implications in an age of Progres- nurtures such character. ■ sive politics and Pragmatic philoso-
46 Fire Management Today The story unfolds in a broad context of fire ecology and social, political, and cultural history.
AFTERMATH
Editor’s note: The following Many of the public lands suffered had boiled out of the Great excerpt from the conclusion of fire famine; forests were diseased Fires had, like the conflagra- Stephen J. Pyne’s book Year of the and dying and prone to catastrophic tions themselves, at last ended Fires illustrates Pyne’s mastery of fires. Then came that annus its colossal run. The federal discursive prose. horribilis, 1994, in which thirty- agencies sought to salvage what four firefighters died, two million they could, and they intended to By the end of the twentieth acres burned, and emergency fire do so by reintroducing some century, the triumph of fire costs reached a ballistic $965 species of controlled (or pre- exclusion had proved as fleeting as million. Everyone admitted the scribed) burning. its critics had claimed it would be. system was broken. The policy that
WEBSITES ON FIRE*
Northwest Wildland Fire Compact • Expediting the delivery of fire control resources; The Northwest Wildland Fire Compact is an opera- • Exploring opportunities to share fire management tional agreement to identify and exchange wildland data and systems; and fire resources among the States of Alaska, Idaho, • Cooperating in prevention programs and activi- Montana, Oregon, and Washington and the Canadian ties.” provincial and territorial agencies in Alberta, British Columbia, and the Yukon. The eight participants have Website links connect to the forestry or fire manage- developed operational guidelines and resource- ment departments of each Compact member and to sharing templates. The Compact’s mission is “to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre and its facilitate the prevention, pre-suppression and control U.S. counterpart, the National Interagency Fire of wildland fire in the Pacific Northwest by: Center.
* Occasionally, Fire Management Today briefly describes Websites brought to our Found at
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 47 FIRST ANNUAL PHOTO CONTEST (CORRECTION)
n 2000, Fire Management Today held its first annual photo contest. Photos in the contest were reprinted in the Fall 2000 issue (Fire Management Today 60(4), pages 38–41). Due to a production error, the printed images did Inot do justice to the original photos. The photos are reprinted here to show their high quality. Do you have a photo that tells a story about wildland fire management? If so, turn to page 51 for instructions on how to enter our annual photo contest.
First Place, Ground Resources. Firefighter Honorable Mention, Wildland Fire. Fayette Lake Fire burning in lodgepole pine at burning out a section of fireline on the 1988 about 9,000 feet (2,700 m) near the Continental Divide on the Jim Bridger Wilderness, Fayette Lake Fire, Jim Bridger Wilderness, Bridger–Teton National Forest, WY. The fire coincided with the 1988 Yellowstone Fires. Bridger–Teton National Forest, WY. Photo: Photo: Richard Claypole, USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp Richard Claypole, USDA Forest Service, Ranger District, Happy Camp, CA, 1988. Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp Ranger District, Happy Camp, CA, 1988.
Second Place, Miscellaneous. Bracken fern, one of many carpeting the forest floor 2 years First Place, Prescribed Fire. Single strip of prescribed fire under ponderosa after a prescribed fire on the Coconino National pines on the Fort Valley Experimental Forest, Coconino National Forest, AZ. Forest, AZ. Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Peaks Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Ranger District, Flagstaff, AZ, 1996. Peaks Ranger District, Flagstaff, AZ, 1998.
48 Fire Management Today Third Place, Miscella- neous. Historic fire lookout tree on Lindberg Hill, North Rim, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ. Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Peaks Ranger District, Flagstaff, AZ, 1999.
Honorable Mention, Prescribed Fire. Strip firing under ponderosa pines on the Fort Valley Experimental Forest, Coconino National Forest, AZ. Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Peaks Ranger District, Flagstaff, AZ, 1996.
Honorable Mention, Prescribed Fire. The Flagstaff Hotshots using First Place, Miscellaneous. Lupines carpeting the floor of an open prescribed fire to restore a travel corridor for pronghorns. Photo: old-growth ponderosa pine forest maintained by frequent lightning Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, fires on the Powell Plateau, North Rim, Grand Canyon National Peaks Ranger District, Flagstaff, AZ, 1999. Park, AZ. Photo: Allen Farnsworth, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Peaks Ranger District, Flagstaff, AZ, 1998.
First Place, Aerial Resources. A P3–A airtanker delivering retardant on the 1999 Yellow Pine Complex, Modoc National Forest, CA. Redding Hotshots (foreground) are preparing to help burn out a large section of fireline after the retardant drop. Photo: James Gould, USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp Ranger District, Happy Camp, CA, 1999.
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 49 BEFORE HELICOPTERS: BLIMPS FOR WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING?
Hutch Brown ildland fire managers have During the 1920 fire season, a Acknowledgment long understood the need blimp was tested on the Angeles The author wishes to thank Jerry W for speed in detecting, National Forest in California. “As a Williams, a historical analyst for reaching, and suppressing fires result of this trial,” reported the USDA Forest Service, Wash- before they grow large. Beginning Hutchinson, “officers of the United ington Office, Washington, DC, in 1919, the USDA Forest Service States Forest Service are of the for providing the information for eagerly embraced a relatively new opinion that the blimp offers a this article. fire management tool for its speed practical solution to many of the and versatility: aircraft. forest fire problems in our country.” Reference Hutchinson, W. 1921. “Pony Blimps for Airtankers, smokejumpers, and Hutchinson was wrong; blimps fighting forest fires.” American helicopters were still far in the never saw operational use. Still, the Forestry Magazine. October: future. In the early 1920s, the only experimentation with blimps did 618–619. ■ feasible use for aircraft seemed to prefigure many helicopter uses that be detection. But that would came much later, including supply, change. Creative minds were transportation, and even helirap- already scheming to use aircraft to peling.* transport firefighters and equip- ment and for resupply on remote wildland fires. * See Michael Dudley and Gregory S. Greenhoe, “Fifty Years of Helicopter Firefighting,” Fire Management Notes 58(4): 6–7. One early idea was to use blimps. The blimp seemed to offer many of the advantages associated today with helicopters. According to Wallace Hutchinson (1921), an early advocate of wildland fire aviation, the blimp could:
• fly “from 25 to 50 feet of the earth as well as at several thousand feet”; • “land on a very small plot of favorable ground”; • “be held nearly stationary close to the earth”; • “discharge fire fighters by means of rope ladders”; and • “be used for transporting supplies and fire-fighting equipment.”
Blimp tested for fire patrol on the Angeles National Forest, CA. The carriage suspended Hutch Brown is the managing editor of from the balloon (visible at top) could carry firefighters, supplies, and equipment. Photo: Fire Management Today, USDA Forest Courtesy of National Agricultural Library, Special Collections, Forest Service Photo- Service, Washington Office, Washington, graph Collection, Beltsville, MD (W.I. Hutchinson, 1921; 156936). DC.
50 Fire Management Today ANNUAL PHOTO CONTEST Fire Management Today invites you to • Ground resources •You must complete and sign a statement submit your best fire-related photos to be • Miscellaneous (fire effects; fire weather; granting rights to use your photo(s) to judged in our annual competition. Judging fire-dependent communities or species; the USDA Forest Service (see sample begins after the first Friday in March of etc.) statement below). Include your full each year. name, agency or institutional affiliation Rules (if any), address, and telephone number. Awards • Photos are eliminated from competition • The contest is open to everyone. You may if they lack detailed captions; have date All contestants will receive a CD–ROM with submit an unlimited number of entries stamps; show unsafe firefighting all photos not eliminated from competition. from any place or time; but for each practices (unless that is their express Winning photos will appear in a future issue photo, you must indicate only one purpose); or are of low technical quality of Fire Management Today. In addition, competition category. (for example, have soft focus or show winners in each category will receive: • Each photo must be an original color camera movement). (Duplicates— slide. We are not responsible for photos including most overlays and other • 1st place—Camera equipment worth lost or damaged, and photos submitted composites—have soft focus and will be $300 and a 16- by 20-inch framed copy of will not be returned (so make a duplicate eliminated.) your photo. before submission). Digital photos will • Photos are judged by a photography • 2nd place—An 11- by 14-inch framed not be accepted because of difficulty professional whose decision is final. copy of your photo. reproducing them in print. • 3rd place—An 8- by 10-inch framed copy •You must own the rights to the photo, of your photo. and the photo must not have been Postmark Deadline published prior to submission. First Friday in March Categories • For every photo you submit, you must give a detailed caption (including, for Send submissions to: • Wildland fire example, name, location, and date of the • Prescribed fire fire; names of any people and/or their job USDA Forest Service • Wildland–urban interface fire descriptions; and descriptions of any Fire Management Today Photo Contest • Aerial resources vegetation and/or wildlife). Attn: Hutch Brown, 2CEN Yates P.O. Box 96090 Washington, DC 20090-6090
Sample Photo Release Statement (You may copy and use this statement. It must be signed.) Enclosed is/are ______(number) slide(s) for publication by the USDA Forest Service. For each slide submitted, the contest category is indicated and a detailed caption is enclosed. I have the authority to give permission to the Forest Service to publish the enclosed photograph(s) and am aware that, if used, it or they will be in the public domain and appear on the World Wide Web.
Signature Date
Volume 61 • No. 4 • Fall 2001 51 5614
subscription(s) to Fire Management Today for $ 13.00 each per year ($ 16.25 foreign).
4/95