Fire Management Today (67[1] Winter 2006) Will Feature Everything from an Examination and Comparison of Agency Vs

Fire today ManagementVolume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006

Using Fire on the Land

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Coming Next… The next issue of Fire Management Today (67[1] Winter 2006) will feature everything from an examination and comparison of agency vs. contract crew fire costs, to American Indian fire use in our eastern woodlands. A professor of English literature and rhetoric—a former wildland firefighter—also debates the order of the 10 Firefighting Orders. And we glean the latest about why “rapid response research” is vital on our wildland fires, as well as insights into the public’s support for our wildland fire policies.

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 .

Mike Johanns, Secretary Melissa Frey U.S. Department of Agriculture General Manager

Dale Bosworth, Chief Paul Keller Forest Service Managing Editor

Tom Harbour, Director Madelyn Dillon Fire and Aviation Management Editor

Tim Sexton Issue Coordinator

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (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.

Fire Management Today Fire Management today Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006

On the Cover: Contents Using Fire on the Land – Probing the Challenges and Opportunities ...... 4 Forest Service Wildland Fire Use Program Is Expanding ...... 5 Tim Sexton The Changing Face of Wildland Fire Use ...... 7 G. Thomas Zimmerman and Richard Lasko Nonwilderness Wildland Fire Use Is Born on Kaibab National Forest. . . . . 13 David P. Mills Wildland Fire Use Success Stories...... 16 David P. Mills Spot-pattern ignition under twilight on the West Hunter Prescribed Wildland Fire Use Makes Headway With U S. . Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . 19 Fire on the Wenatchee National John Segar Forest, Wenatchee, WA. This photo The Fire Use Working Team – A Coordinated, Interagency Effort ...... 20 earned second place honors in Tim Sexton the “prescribed fire” category in Fire Management Today’s 2006 Meeting Forest Ecosystem Objectives with Wildland Fire Use...... 21 photo contest. It was taken by Eli Daniel C. Laughlin and Peter Z. Fulé Lehmann, squad leader on the Reexamining the Role of Lightning in the Landscape ...... 25 Baker River Hotshot Crew, Mount Dana Cohen and Bob Dellinger Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest, Concrete, WA. (See article beginning True Story: A 4-Million Acre “Mega” Maximum Manageable Area...... 28 on page 59 for all of the 2006 photo Jacquie M. Parks contest winners and their photos.) Management Action on the Wooley Fire Is the Appropriate One...... 33 Guy E. Lewis For a discussion of the complexities Prescribed Fire Is Main Fire Use Occurring in Southeastern States . . . . . 36 surrounding wildland fire use and prescribed burning, see the articles John Dickinson beginning on page 4. Wildland Fire Use Expected To Increase Across Bureau of Land Management Lands ...... 37 David Mueller The USDA Forest Service’s Fire and Aviation Management Staff has adopted a Almost the Same Age: Prescribed Fire Program and Forest Service. . . . . 38 logo reflecting three central principles of Tim Sexton wildland fire management: Common Denominators in High-Performance Prescribed Fire Programs . . . . 40 • Innovation: We will respect and value Tim Sexton thinking minds, voices, and thoughts of those that challenge the status quo Wildland Fire Use as a Prescribed Fire Primer...... 47 while focusing on the greater good. Dana Cohen • Execution: We will do what we say we Learning From Escaped Prescribed Fires – Lessons for High Reliability. . . . 50 will do. Achieving program objectives, Deirdre Dether and Anne Black improving diversity, and accomplishing targets are essential to our credibility. What Was Your Biggest Surprise on a Prescribed Fire? ...... 56 Measuring Success in Your Fuels Program ...... 57 • Discipline: What we do, we will do well. Fiscal, managerial, and operational dis- Paula Nasiatka and David Christenson cipline are at the core of our ability to 2006 Photo Winners Announced...... 59 fulfill our mission. Carol LoSapio

Short Features Into the Fire: Video Tribute to Wildland Firefighters ...... 66 Hutch Brown Firefighter and public safety Guidelines for Contributors...... 67 is our first priority. Websites on Fire...... 46

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 Fire on the Land – Probing the Challenges and Opportunities

his issue of Fire Management ha) “mega” maximum management Wildland fire use articles begin on Today provides a series of area. How did they do it? Keep page 5, followed by the prescribed T articles that describe and probe reading. fire coverage on page 38.  the challenges and opportunities associated with both elements of “fire use”—prescribed fire and wild- Fire Use resource benefits while reducing large fire suppression costs. land fire use (see sidebar). “Fire use,” a major program element of wildland fire manage- We cover everything from the ment, includes both wildland fire Prescribed Fires hurdles that confronted the USDA use and prescribed fire applica- “Prescribed fires” are any fires Forest Service’s first wildland fire tions. ignited by management actions to use program managed outside the meet specific objectives. A written, wilderness on the Kaibab National Wildland Fire Use approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Forest, to a description of the vari- “Wildland fire use” is the applica- Policy Act (NEPA) requirements— ous—ground-truthed—common tion of the appropriate manage- where applicable—must be met, denominators for high-performance ment response to naturally ignited prior to ignition. prescribed fire programs. (lightning) wildland fires to accomplish specific resource man- Prescribed fire has been the One of this issue’s articles tells agement objectives in predefined, dominant treatment method for the story of how Klamath National designated areas outlined in Fire National Fire Plan implementa- Forest fire managers wanted Management Plans. to authorize a wildland fire use tion. It serves as a hazard reduction tool while restoring key response on a new fire burning out Wildland fire use provides very ecosystem processes, including in the remote reaches of the rug- low cost opportunities for achiev- everything from nutrient cycling ged Marble Mountain Wilderness. ing hazard reduction and other But they couldn’t be certain it was to insect and disease regulation. lightning caused. Because of firefighter safety and long-term commitment of resources and expenditure concerns, they didn’t want to initiate a suppression response. Unfortunately, it appeared to be their only option. In the end, however, they are able to manage this incident—the Wooley Fire—under the appropriate management response. It’s an interesting tale of success.

This issue also explores everything from an enlightening examination of potential “weak signals” and “early warning signs” mined from Increasing the resistance to severe fire effects—another success story. The 1995 lightning- started Mill Creek Wildland Fire Use Fire (then known as a “prescribed natural fire”)— an analysis of prescribed fire escape shown here—on the Pacific Northwest Region’s Deschutes National Forest, successfully reviews, to the 2005 wildland fire reduced fuel loadings in the Mill Creek Wilderness. Six years later, the 2001 Hash Rock use complex in Montana/Idaho that Fire’s intensity and rate-of-spread was greatly reduced when this wildfire moved into the Mill Creek Wildland Fire Use Fire’s previously burned areas. Photo: Tom Iraci, USDA claimed a 4-million acre (1,618,749 Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Office, Portland, OR, 1995.

Fire Management Today Forest Service Wildland Fire Use Program Is Expanding Tim Sexton

ildland fire use (WFU) is an expanding program that The 1988 Yellowstone Fire controversy caused W enables fire managers to the USDA Forest Service to evaluate the risks and achieve resource benefits from natural ignitions and reduce the cost benefits of its wildland fire use program. of aggressive suppression actions which, otherwise, would have been taken.

Wildland fire use was first implemented in northern Idaho wilderness areas by the USDA Forest Service in 1972. (The USDI National Park Service had first implemented WFU in California in 1968.) The program—introduced in wilderness areas—developed cautiously and remained relatively small during the 1970s and 1980s. The 1988 Yellowstone Fire controversy caused the Forest Service to evaluate the risks and benefits of its WFU program. The 2005 Dragon Complex Wildland Fire Use Incident. Photo: Sharon Hood, USDA This evaluation determined that Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2005. while the program was sound, Wildland Fire Use Effects forest WFU plans needed to be Colin Hardy (pictured above), project leader of the Fire Behavior improved to reduce risks and Research Work Unit, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, to enable better achievement of MT, presents the “Rapid Response Research” operations plan to the resource benefits. incident management team on the 2005 Dragon Complex Wildland Fire Use Incident on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, AZ. (For During the 1990s, existing WFU more information on the benefits of wildland fire use in the Grand plans were revised and many Canyon, see article beginning on page 21.) forests that had not previously allowed WFU developed plans that Rapid Response Research is the process by which researchers col- authorized this management tool. lect data, either on active fires or immediately after fire occurrence. The average annual burned area This important undertaking provides real-time information, useful increased from about 13,000 acres data, and improved tools for managers. (5,261 ha) during the 1970s and Rapid Response Researach can encompass fire ecology, burn sever- Tim Sexton, coordinator for this special ity, fire behavior, firefighter safety, emissions, erosion, vegetation “fire use” issue of Fire Management Today, is the fire use program manager for the response, remote sensing, and a multitude of various fire-related USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation topics. (An in-depth article on Rapid Response Research will be fea- Management, Washington Office, National tured in the forthcoming winter issue of Fire Management Today.) Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 80s to more than 33,000 acres USDA Forest Service Wildland Fire Use History (13,355 ha) during the 1990s. Year WFUs Acres Starting in 2001, after the National 1972-1989 totals 155 220,007 Fire Plan was initiated, a significant 1972-1989 annual average 9.1 12,942 increase in WFU accomplishment 1990 35 1,965 occurred. From 2001 through 2005, 1991 68 2,272 the average annual area burned was 1992 71 2,620 111,985 acres (37,454 ha). 1993 29 32,486 Wildland fire use outside of wilder- 1994 47 2,194 ness areas is relatively new. Prior to 1995 82 48,671 2004, only a few forests (mostly in 1996 105 132,379 Arizona and Utah) had authorized WFU outside of wilderness areas. 1997 150 32,873 1998 169 53,190 1999 531 51,976 After the National Fire 2000 60 5,159 Plan was initiated, a 1990-2000 annual average 122 33,253 significant increase 2001 92 28,544 in wildland fire use 2002 82 36,208 accomplishment 2003 185 161,139 occurred. 2004 156 38,655 2005 311 295,380 2001-2005 annual average 165 111,985 Across the country, just a few small fires had actually been managed as WFU fires through 2004. In 2005, about 30 percent of the area burned USDA Forest Service – Area Available for Wildland Fire Use under WFU strategies occurred out- Region Forests/Units Total National Forest National Forest System side of wilderness. System Acres Acres Approved in FMP for WFU Fire management plans completed 1 13 25,441,151 5,723,000 in December 2004 greatly increased the area available for WFU outside 2 11 22,082,077 6,798,000 of wilderness areas. In 2005, about 3 11 20,705,347 10,547,000 25 percent of Forest Service lands 4 13 32,171,000 17,330,000 had planning in place to allow 5 17 20,151,340 4,368,000 WFU. As new fire management 6 18 24,732,174 1,784,000 plans in progress are completed, this percentage should increase 8 15 13,123,629 0 significantly during the next 2 9 17 11,907,106 1,000,000 years.  10 2 21,973,662 0 Total 117 192,287,486 47,550,000 Percent of total area available for wildland fire use 25%

In 2006, the Southern Region amended plans to allow WFU in more than 6.8 million acres (2,751,874 ha) of national forest lands. The region implemented its first WFU on the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas in June and July of 2006. The Sulpher Mountain WFU burned almost 4,000 acres (1,619 ha).

Fire Management Today The Changing Face of Wildland Fire Use G. Thomas Zimmerman and Richard Lasko

or more than three decades, public and management sup- “The application of the appropriate management response to F port has increased for a fire naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management strategy that allows management objectives in predefined areas designated in Fire naturally ignited wildland fire to Management Plans.” accomplish resource benefits. –Wildland fire use as defined in the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy Initially limited by funding, uncertain public support, and agency reluctance—and confined almost Greater Understanding During the last 8 years, more programmatic change has been associ- exclusively to wilderness and Strong advocacy from manage- ated with using wildland fire for national parks—wildland fire use ment, employees, the scientific resource benefits than in the previ- (WFU) is now emerging as a strong- community, policymakers, and the ous three decades. The following is ly supported and endorsed compo- public for using wildland fire to a summary of this WFU program nent of wildland fire management. achieve beneficial purposes is allow- emergence and expansion. ing for significant program evolu- Expectations that all wildland fires tion. Wildland fire use has moved can and should be immediately sup- Prescribed National pressed are changing. For the most Fire – Program part, this is most likely due to the Emergence Early prescribed natural realization that the following reali- Ever since the agency’s program ties make fire exclusion a daunting fire efforts were tacitly changed from “fire control” to and undesirable goal: supported, limited in “fire management,” wildland fire has been used by land managers • Wildland fire workforce limita- extent, and carried out under close scrutiny. in varying degrees to accomplish tions, ecological benefits through both • Safety concerns, prescribed natural fire and WFU. • Fiscal constraints, and • Fire behavior characteristics. beyond the confines of remote, Prescribed natural fire (PNF)—his- inaccessible areas. It is expanding torically limited to wilderness Increased understanding of the across an increasing variety of land applications—was utilized from ecological role of fire and the det- use situations. 1970 to 1997. This strategy was a rimental effects of universal fire management application defined exclusion require the inclusion of In the 1990s, redefinition of nation- by policy as “the use of naturally WFU as an integral element of a al fire management policy changed ignited wildland fires to accom- sound fire management program. the program name from “prescribed plish beneficial objectives within a natural fire” to “wildland fire set of predetermined prescriptive use”—with little change in objec- criteria.” At the time PNF was initi- tives and management intent. But, ated, compared to the longstanding within a few years of establishing historical emphasis on fire control, Tom Zimmerman is Director of Fire WFU, a greater understanding of and Aviation Management for the USDA it was revolutionary. Early efforts Forest Service, Southwestern Region, the strategy, an improved definition were tacitly supported, limited in Albuquerque, NM; Richard Lasko is stra- of management procedures, and an extent, and carried out under close tegic fuels planner for the USDA Forest increase in application opportuni- scrutiny. Service, Fire and Aviation Management, ties occurred. Washington, DC.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 The initial PNF pioneers established a solid foundation for future inno- Wildland fire use has moved beyond the confines vations and use of wildland fire. of remote, inaccessible areas. It is expanding Twenty-seven years of experience across an increasing variety of land use situations. in managing fire in wilderness led to extensions of planning processes and implementation techniques • Policy requirements, scape now embraces even more and increased abilities to success- • Programmatic planning require- concerns, including: fully manage risk. As a result, PNF ments, • Size constraints as defined by became a proven technique to meet • Implementation procedures, and smaller maximum manageable wilderness and ecological objectives • Fiscal authorizations areas, that became widely accepted over (Zimmerman and Bunnell 2001). • The presence of private lands, time. • Socioeconomic considerations, While the WFU program developed • Threatened and endangered spe- Wildland Fire Use – from an initial focus on sustaining cies protection needs, Program Evolution ecological and wilderness values, • Smoke management, and Wildland fire use, defined through WFU applications today are moving • The presence of recreational and the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire beyond wilderness into managed urban developments. Management Policy, has been uti- lands. These treatments are tran- lized since 1998: “The application sitioning from a wilderness-only Managing wildland fire in nonwil- of the appropriate management practice to potential application derness settings, while conducted response to naturally ignited wild- across a variety of land use situa- on a small scale since the late land fires to accomplish specific tions. 1990s, has yet to receive extensive resource management objectives in public endorsement. With any new predefined areas designated in Fire The evolution of the program to process, practice, or substantial Management Plans (USDA/USDI include implementation of WFU in change, real or perceived manage- 2005).” nonwilderness is predicated on the ment failures can potentially limit acknowledgement of the insepara- WFU implementation. Wildland fire use realizes beneficial bility—and equal importance—of ecologic effects from wildland fire. ecologic, social, and economic As the focus expands beyond wil- Other appropriate management needs and requirements. derness, mitigating emerging chal- responses, however, are focused on lenges will require continued evolu- countering or preventing adverse Management tion of policy and implementation effects from unwanted wildland Challenges procedures, as well as increased fire. The emerging WFU management public involvement in planning and landscape still presents those implementation. These challenges While few differences exist between fundamental challenges associ- can be successfully addressed PNF and WFU in their objectives, ated with managing an unfettered through the development and substantial variation between the fire event from start to finish. implementation of clear direction two can be found in: Moreover, this management land- and procedures that are thoroughly understood by all who implement the program. During the last 8 years more programmatic Significant Evolution change has been associated with using wildland While a variety of constraints lim- fire for resource benefits than in the previous ited PNF application for more than three decades. two decades, WFU has undergone significant evolution in a very short

Continued on page 12

Fire Management Today Prescribed Natural Fire and Wildland Fire Use – A Comparison of Management Considerations and Practices Management What’s Old What’s New Consideration

Objectives Restoration of fire as a natural process in Restoration and maintenance of ecosys- wilderness. tems, fuel reduction, and improved protection capability by lessening extent, spread, and behavior of future wildland fires.

Land Use Situation Wilderness and national park-only. All land use situations where feasible.

Scale Size mattered. Fires were confined to large Size doesn’t matter. Fires of all sizes are wildernesses and national parks so that managed. wildland fire use (WFU) imple- fire growth and chances for spread toward mentation in non-wilderness will—by values needing protection was low. Fires necessity—frequently, but not always, be burned in all sizes—from very small to implemented on a smaller scale than in relatively large. Size and time were the pri- wilderness. Intensive planning, long-term mary mitigation measures used to ensure risk assessment, identification of potential the fire remained within the desired area. threats, and development and application of mitigation actions all ensure fires remain within desired parameters.

Fiscal Authorizations and Finite allocated fund accounts were in Authority to use emergency fire funds. Cost Containment place. The small size of these accounts led to frequent exhaustion of funds prior to the Cost containment continues to be an end of fire season and missed opportunities important management concern. But it is every year. no longer a case of limited fund availability for WFU accounts. Cost containment is a Cost containment was a significant topic of concern for all fire management program concern by agency administrators regard- components. WFU is subject to agency cost ing management of prescribed natural fire containment goals, total fire management (PNF) due to limited availability of funds. funding limits, and the propensity for rapidly escalating expenditures on fires.

Alternatively, WFU application is viewed as a potential cost saving alternative to long- duration, large-fire suppression events.

Planning Procedures A PNF plan that was agency-specific A Wildland Fire Implementation Plan is was used as the planning document. used to complete progressively developed Implementation was neither guided nor stages of planning and to guide document documented by a specific document. implementation. This document is established as interagency policy. Instructions are provided in the Wildland Fire Use: Implementation Procedures Reference Guide, published in 1998 and revised and updated in 2005 and 2006 (USDA/USDI 2005).

Continued on next page

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 Management What’s Old What’s New Consideration

Planning Area Reference A maximum allowable perimeter was ini- MMAs have no size limitations. MMAs are tially used as the geographic limits for a designed to be consistent with the set of PNF. For clarification in understanding circumstances surrounding each fire situa- and application, this was changed to a tion. Managing WFU in smaller landscapes maximum manageable area (MMA) in the creates numerous situations where the fire early 1990s. Early MMA perimeters relied is immediately adjacent to a MMA. These primarily on size as a requirement and were situations will be more frequent in non- considered a prescriptive element. If fires wilderness WFU applications—but are not exceeded this perimeter line, they were inappropriate or undesirable. considered out of prescription and were declared a wildfire—with an accompanying MMAs are used as a planning area reference suppression response. for assessing threats from a fire, completing long-term risk assessments, and developing mitigation actions that can be implemented between the fire and the value threatened. MMAs now have much greater flexibility in their application. They are not a strict prescription element and can be changed in response to changing fire situations.

Planning and No qualifications—aside from standard After the transition from PNF to WFU, WFU Implementation Incident Command System positions identi- became a part of wildland fire and not pre- Qualifications fied by agencies for wildfire suppression— scribed fire. As a result, the PNF manager existed for PNF. At the time of the 1995 position was dropped and a fire use man- policy change from PNF to WFU, a PNF ager (FUMA) position was created for dedi- manager had been created for this purpose. cated use on WFU events. In recent years, the FUMA has expanded into two types: a fire use manager type 1 (FUM1) and a fire use manager type 2 (FUM2).

Public Perceptions The public was generally uncertain of pur- While the public exhibits higher levels of pose, actions, and outcome. Some people support and understanding, viewing WFU were sometimes contentious and viewed as an acceptable fire management practice, fires as “let-burn” management. the objectives, associated risks, planning procedures, implementation practices, and Agencies did not always communicate pro- potential tradeoffs of using wildland fire are active public education messages that could still not clearly understood and are some- alleviate these perceptions. At times, these times not well accepted. Correspondingly, misperceptions were exacerbated by media some people are resistant to accept WFU as representations of fire situations. a legitimate fire management option.

Management Perceptions Managers remained cautious, viewed all As understanding of risk assessment and fires as high risk, were uncertain of the risk mitigation processes increase, many outcome, and struggled with acceptance. Federal managers are generally supportive with increased tolerance for risk. Not all Implementation was constrained as higher State and local governments accept WFU as levels of national preparedness were an acceptable practice. reached. WFU implementation occurs even at the highest levels of national preparedness.

Fire Management Today 10 Management What’s Old What’s New Consideration

Mitigation Actions Less mitigation utilized. In addition to the Management of WFU does not have a strict amount of mitigation actions, the kind of requirement of no on-the-ground action. actions also varied. Wilderness fire imple- In fact, smaller area management actions mentation had a high focus on monitor- must be commensurate with values to be ing, mapping, and closures with some protected. Nonwilderness fires are proving, on-the-ground holding or checking actions. in general, to present a slightly higher risk “Hands on” actions were viewed as failures level. More management actions are often of policy or implementation. necessary in these areas.

Nonwilderness fires frequently require more intense containment actions. These types of focused and more intense management actions—seemingly inconsistent with the original philosophy of restoring fire to wilderness—are not inconsistent with objectives of ecosystem restoration and maintenance in all land use situations.

Private Lands Private lands were not included in PNF In recent years, a growing interest has activities. In previous applications of the surfaced from private landowners wanting use of wildland fire, it was a standard prac- to be included in WFU applications. Where tice to protect private lands and, in the practicable, arrangements have been—or process, prevent fire from burning outside are being—made to include private lands. of Federal lands. This is reducing overall complexity, low- ering overall implementation costs, and building public and community support for WFU.

Social, Economic Concerns Few social, economic concerns were asso- The same issues that confronted PNF still ciated with PNF implementation in large exist for WFU with additional social and wildernesses. Impacts of closures or restric- economic concerns. Wildland fires in non- tions to outfitters, hunters, campers, hik- wilderness increase the scope of economic ers, or other outdoor recreationists resulted impacts. Examples include impacts to from fire activity. Personal safety issues livestock operators, damage to public and were sometimes encountered with PNF in private fences, protection of threatened and national parks. endangered species, threats to community values, and damage to harvestable timber. Additional mitigation actions are necessary and can involve movement of livestock to alternative areas, delaying or checking and preventing the spread of fire through, or into, a specific area.

Smoke Management – Smoke management concerns have always Smoke management impacts are receiv- Air Quality existed and implementation activities ing greater attention than ever before. accounted for and mitigated these to the The expansion of the program potentially greatest extent possible. Impacts were limit- increases the number of fires and cumula- ed to a small number of geographic locales. tive smoke production. With geographic expansion, coordination among land management agencies, State air quality agencies, and local air quality boards has increased.

Continued on next page

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 11 Management What’s Old What’s New Consideration

Post-Fire Management – Invasive species spread and intensification Invasive species have become a serious Invasive Species during PNF applications were viewed as a threat on recently disturbed sites. In many far less important problem than they are areas, managed fire can be beneficial in the today. Few actions were taken to address long term. But on some sites, short-term this problem. protection against invasive species (until native plants are established) is needed and can be desirable. In addition, concerns about increasing fire hazard due to the domination of a site by invasive species are becoming more prevalent.

Continued from page 8 time. It has literally spread like The initial prescribed natural fire pioneers wildfire across administrative units, established a solid foundation for future land use situations, and jurisdic- innovations and use of wildland fire. tions. It is receiving the highest level of support and advocacy within Federal wildland fire man- in all nonwilderness situations. anchored within specific bounds of agement. In some cases, prescribed fire or operability. mechanical treatments may best Wildland fire use is quickly becom- meet resource objectives. In summary, successful WFU man- ing a viable and well-accepted agement must be predicated on management strategy for directly An expanding WFU program brings: skilled managers who implement achieving vital land management actions that meet current program objectives of ecosystem restoration • Higher complexity, requirements—coupled with con- and maintenance—which indirectly • An increased need for on-the- tinued and proactive collaboration supports community protection. A ground mitigation actions, among Federal and State agencies, program proven to be an effective • The development of a larger cadre private organizations, and private management practice in wilderness of skilled managers, and landowners. is now expanding into nonwilder- • Escalating public concern. ness situations with highly success- References ful results. Whenever applied, the use of wild- USDA/USDI. 2005. Wildland Fire Use: land fire must achieve land man- implementation procedures reference Even though success has been guide. NTIS Order Number: PB2005. agement objectives and remain USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. achieved, WFU may not be suitable Zimmerman, G.T.; Bunnell, D.L. 2000. The Federal wildland fire policy: Opportunities for wilderness fire management. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Borrie, With any new process, practice, or substantial W.T.; O’Laughlin, J. Wilderness science change, real or perceived management in a time of change; 1999; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL–5. failures can potentially limit wildland fire use Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky implementation. Mountain Research Station. 

Fire Management Today 12 Nonwilderness Wildland Fire Use Is Born on Kaibab National Forest David P. Mills

hile the very first outside- the-wilderness flames of We saw how fire suppression efforts often did W the USDA Forest Service’s more damage than the fire itself—as we also wildland fire use (WFU) program burned on the Kaibab National questioned the high costs of aggressive fire Forest in the spring of 2003, the suppression. planning for that unprecedented undertaking began a full decade before. the high costs of aggressive fire Skeptics Voice Concern suppression. With encouragement from the During the early 1990s, many of us Forest Service Southwestern At the same time, we watched in wildland fire management were Regional Office, the Kaibab our neighbors at Grand Canyon interested in the changing relation- National Forest began the process National Park continue to develop ship between humans and wildfire. of composing a forest-wide WFU their fire use program. During We listened carefully to Dr. Wally plan, seeking public involvement these years, many other fire man- Covington and others at Northern in 1996. Four years later, in 2000, agers, researchers, writers, and Arizona University whose studies it was finally signed by the forest speakers provided inspiration and indicated an ecosystem out of bal- supervisor and ready for implemen- leadership for our evolving fire use ance due to fire exclusion. tation. perspective. We heard Steve Servis and Paul Boucher at the Gila National Forest explain their efforts to reestablish a low-intensity–high-frequency fire regime using appropriate management response. We read Stephen Pyne’s account of Fire in America (Pyne 1982) and other papers that examined evidence of aboriginal fire use as a landscape management tool.

We noticed how our increasing effectiveness at suppressing small wildfires meant that unmanageable and highly destructive fires ultimately moved across the landscape. We saw how fire suppression efforts often did more damage than the fire itself—as we also questioned

David Mills is the assistant fire management officer and fire use manager for the USDA Forest Service, Tusayan Ranger The 250-acre (100 ha) Antelope Wildland Fire Use Fire, in 2003, was one of the first five District, Kaibab National Forest, Grand wildland fire use fires on nonwilderness USDA Forest Service lands—all occurring that Canyon, AZ. year on the Kaibab National Forest. Photo: USDA Forest Service, 2003.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 13 During this process, many people acres (1,620 ha) were treated on wondered if such a program could the Tusayan Ranger District. A few actually work. Even some members hundred additional WFU acres were of the wildland fire management also accomplished on the Kaibab’s community found it difficult to Williams Ranger District. imagine allowing wildfires to burn outside of wilderness boundaries— Because the spring of 2005 ushered especially on a national forest with: in some relief from the drier-than- normal conditions, the decision was • High recreational use, made to begin considering WFU • Ranching, fires with that year’s earliest light- • Private inholdings, ning strikes. This resulted in the • Scattered communities and sub- treatment of more than 8,000 acres divisions, (3,240 ha) on the Tusayan Ranger • Historic and prehistoric archaeo- District—with no serious smoke logical sites, impacts and very little high-severity • Wildlife concerns, and The lightning-triggered Horse Wildland burning. • Smoke-sensitive areas such as Fire Use Fire—due to fairly high relative Grand Canyon National Park. humidity and fuel moisture following the Of course, Kaibab National 2003 summer rains—burned with low intensity. Photo: USDA Forest Service, Forest fire managers realize that Gradually, concerns and issues 2003. an increase in WFU acres each were resolved. By 2003, the Kaibab year—such as occurred the past National Forest’s WFU plan was few seasons—is not sustainable. implemented. Even some members Nonetheless, much has been learned about this necessary appli- Successful Treatments of the wildland fire cation of fire on the landscape. Starting that spring, decisions were management community Simultaneously, confidence in the made to use a total of five light- found it difficult to WFU program from resource spe- ning-started wildfires for resource imagine allowing cialists—as well as among the local public—is high. benefits. The North Kaibab Ranger wildfires to burn District gained the distinction of managing the first WFU on the outside of wilderness Even with the current return of Kaibab National Forest. That fire, boundaries. drier conditions, we expect to con- named the South Rock WFU Fire, tinue the use of this new and excit- grew to 15 acres (6 ha). ing tool. ecstatic to have successfully treated After fire season peaked and poten- nearly 400 acres (162 ha)—watch- And while these more restrictive tial forest fire conditions were ing fire function once again within droughty conditions in 2006 might less volatile, the Tusayan Ranger northern Arizona’s fire-adapted not provide us with as many oppor- District continued this Forest ponderosa pine ecosystem. tunities to manage WFUs as we Service’s national christening of received last year, we are, nonethe- WFU implementation outside wil- After the arrival of summer rains, less, still confident that the roots of derness areas. the North Kaibab Ranger District a viable, long-term WFU program together with the Tusayan Ranger on this forest have successfully In early August, the Horse WFU District had successfully managed a taken hold. Fire burned about 150 acres (60 total of five WFU fires. ha). At that time, this seemed to References be a major accomplishment. A few Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cul- Confidence Is High tural history of wildland and rural fire. weeks later on the Tusayan District, The success of the 2003 season Princeton, NJ: Princeton University the Antelope WFU Fire burned was followed by a more ambitious Press.  almost 250 acres (100 ha). We were year in 2004. More than 4,000

Fire Management Today 14 Lessons Learned from First Nonwilderness Wildland Fire Use Fires

David P. Mills

s with any new approach, in planning and implementing The WFU program requires participation and A some of this country’s first support from internal personnel as well as local wildland fire use (WFU)—nonwilderness—fires on the Kaibab residents and neighboring agencies. National Forest, we have found some things that work well. this return of fire, events in which that we’ve made on the Kaibab a head fire is acceptable are becom- National Forest: And some that don’t. ing more numerous. 1. WFU fire results in a mosaic Perhaps one of the most impor- On the other hand, we have also that can range from unburned tant lessons is that the WFU discovered that fire starts within and low-intensity patches to program requires participation areas dominated by piñyon and high-intensity areas—with size and support from internal person- juniper are less likely to be produc- depending on the fire environ- nel as well as local residents and tive—unless fire behavior occurs ment (fuels, topography, and neighboring agencies. weather). 2. Reasons for suppressing a fire Fire information has to be read- Incentives for wildland (risks, costs, safety) are still ily available, timely, and accurate. more numerous than rea- Concerns or complaints need to fire use need to be sons for allowing it to grow. be heard and addressed quickly. built from a vision of Incentives for WFU need to be In our experience, many local restoring forest health. built from a vision of restoring residents became interested in forest health. the program. We quickly realized 3. One of the biggest challenges that it is worth the effort and time at a higher intensity. This, in turn, for fire practitioners is to step to provide opportunities for the means that: back and watch. We have a ten- public to see, for themselves, the dency to want to speed things results of our burning activities. • Containment can be more diffi- up or slow them down. cult, 4. In addition to support from • Fire effects can be more dramat- Inside Tips line officers, specialists and ic—and possibly undesirable, and For WFU to be successful on the researchers, a viable WFU pro- • The potential for damaging sensi- Kaibab National Forest, we have gram must have the support of tive features (such as archeology, chosen lightning starts that occur the local public. wildlife habitat, and airshed) is in areas where containment is not 5. Some aspects of risk manage- more likely. difficult. Within our local topogra- ment require courage. True phy—given the prevailing south- success comes from practice. west winds—this usually means to So far, our WFU acres in piñyon and juniper woodlands have been the north and east of a fire start. Perhaps the most beneficial aspect minimal. of implementing WFU on the Inside ponderosa pine stands, Kaibab National Forest has been we strive to establish backing Five Topmost the opportunity for all of us to fire as the primary movement. Observations participate in a new and exciting This decreases the possibility for A list of our WFU program’s lessons program of wildland fire manage- undesirable effects or escapes learned could fill several pages. I ment that results in a healthier outside of our planned perimeter. will therefore share what I feel are forest, improved skills, and a lot of As more of our forest experiences the most important observations pride in our work.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 15 Wildland Fire Use Success Stories David P. Mills

everal times during the 2005 fire season on the Kaibab Even though it was dry and hot, these spot fires S National Forest’s Tusayan were very easy to contain and extinguish with Ranger District, Grand Canyon, AZ, wildfire burned through areas hand tools. that had been previously treated by burning or mechanical thinning, or both. Each time, these prior treat- Ideally—as was demonstrated sive damage to ecosystem compo- ments helped to reduce wildfire in 2005 on the Tusayan Ranger nents. intensity and severity. District—a mix of mechanical thinning and prescribed burning can Even where mechanical treatments David Mills is the assistant fire manage- provide stand characteristics that have not been implemented, pre- ment officer and fire use manager for the will allow wildfire to move through scribed burning or wildland fire USDA Forest Service, Tusayan Ranger the forest—even in the middle of use (WFU) treatments that occur District, Kaibab National Forest, Grand Canyon, AZ. fire season—without causing exces- during the later and cooler part of

Fire managers correctly predicted that the Muddersbach Wildland Fire Use Fire on the Kaibab National Forest would burn with high intensity until it moved into the surrounding areas that had previously been treated with fire use. Photo: USDA Forest Service, 2005.

Fire Management Today 16 Once again, previous burning appeared to significantly reduce susceptibility to severe fire effects.

Mixed Treatments In the mid-1990s, approximately 50,000 acres (20,250 ha) of the Tusayan Ranger District were mechanically treated by precom- mercial thinning and limited sales of saw timber. In 1997, this area was prescribe burned. Treatment prescriptions primarily involved thinning from below coupled with low-intensity burning.

These management actions left a somewhat overstocked stand of intermediate-aged ponderosa pine, scattered oak clumps, and very light grasses and forbs. Dead and down fuel loading had been reduced to less than 8 or 9 tons/acre (3 or 4 tons/ha).

In 2003, some of this area was burned again by the Horse WFU Fire. This fire was started by lightning and—due to fairly high relative humidity and fuel moisture following summer rains—burned with low intensity.

Post-fire tree mortality was therefore minimal, less than 15 percent the fire season begins the process 7 years), fire intensity can increase in intermediate growth, and nearly of reducing fuels and moving eco- without severe consequences— 0 in mature and older yellow pine. system conditions closer to those resulting in a gradual thinning of that provide resilience for in-season trees by natural means. In 2005, the Muddersbach WFU wildfire occurrence. Fire burned west of this area, The following three events from separated by a well-traveled road. It could be argued that low-inten- these 2005 occurrences in Arizona Because the Muddersbach WFU sity burning may not sufficiently demonstrate these beneficial effects Fire burned with moderate to high reduce tree density in grossly that previous fuel treatments in intensity, numerous spot fires were overstocked stands. However, with ponderosa pine forests can have on ignited and burned within the area frequent return intervals (less than current fires. of the 2003 Horse WFU Fire.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 17 Even though it was dry and hot— Required elements include frequent ignitions; conditions that normally contribute to rapid burning with moderate competent fire managers; and the support of line resistance to control—these spot officers, specialists, and the public. fires were very easy to contain and extinguish with hand tools. • Dense clumps of pine reproduc- mature and older pines was still The prior tree removal and reduction—dog hair thickets with 500 less than 5 percent. tion of dead and down fuels by the to 2,000 trees per acre (1,250 to previous prescribed burning clearly 5,000 trees per ha), measuring Two years later, the Muddersbach resulted in a forest that was capable less than 6 inches (15 cm) in WFU Fire ignited just west of the of accepting mid-season fire occur- diameter; Antelope WFU Fire and burned rence with few—if any—undesir- • Overstocked intermediate with even higher intensities. Tree able effects. growth—150 to 250 trees per stands just north of the Antelope acre (370 to 620 trees per ha) WFU Fire that were burned by the Reducing Severe where research indicates pre- Muddersbach WFU Fire suffered Fire Effects settlement conditions were 1/10 severe, stand-replacing fire intensi- In 2003, in the same portion of the or less of this tree density range; ties. All trees in one 35-acre (14-ha) district—within an area that had and area were killed. not received significant mechanical • A considerably heavier fuel load treatments—the Antelope WFU Fire of surface litter—11 to 16 tons/ When the Muddersbach WFU Fire started burning just as the Horse acre (5 to 7 tons/ha). started, fire managers recognized WFU Fire was stalling out. While that the point of origin and prevail- conditions were still relatively cool Within this area, while tree mortal- ing winds would likely push the fire and humid, fire intensity was occa- ity in younger trees may have been toward the previously burned Horse sionally moderate due to: closer to 20 percent, mortality in and Antelope WFU areas. They knew this would afford an opportunity to moderate the forward spread of the Muddersbach fire as it reburned into this area that had already been treated with fire.

For the first several days, this did prevent the Muddersbach fire from moving to the northeast. As conditions became hotter and drier, the fire moved rapidly with high intensity to the north and south around the Antelope WFU Fire area. This resulted in high intensity burning for a couple days—until the fire’s forward spread was impeded by roads as well as the previously treated area of the Horse WFU Fire.

In the days that immediately followed, the fire moved through the The Camp 36 Wildland Fire Use (WFU) Fire proved to be a prime example of how these Antelope fire site with much lower natural WFU fires can result in a broad mosaic of hot, cool, and unburned patches. This intensity and more acceptable fire 3,052-acre (1,220-ha) fire burned sporadically—with a variety of effects—during the summer rains throughout August 2004. It burned with the desired low to moderate intensities effects. Once again, previous burn- through a variety of fuel types—including goshawk nesting areas. The fire accomplished ing appeared to significantly reduce several objectives, including providing a patchwork of tree clumps and openings necessary susceptibility to severe fire effects. for healthy goshawk nesting and foraging. Photo: USDA Forest Service, 2004.

Fire Management Today 18 Moderate Fire Effects It started in a location that allowed ning slash that had been prescribed the fire to move with prevailing burned earlier that spring. In other A third area on the Tusayan Ranger winds through these nearby previ- parts of the burn, fire intensity was District had received a combination ously treated stands. high enough to cause mortality in of mechanical and prescribed burn- more than 20 percent of the inter- ing treatments prior to the occur- As fire weather conditions moved mediate-aged and younger trees. rence of the 1,035-acre (420-ha) toward the hotter end, the North However, mortality in the older North WFU Fire in 2005. WFU Fire exhibited increased fire pines was rarely more than 5 per- behavior—including rapid surface cent. Most of the fire’s effect—even This fire burned into a portion of runs, isolated and group torching when wind-driven—was moderate the previous prescribed fire proj- in denser stands, and frequent spot- or low-intensity burning. ect that had been burned with low ting. intensity in various blocks from In summary, to achieve these ben- 2002 through 2003. In addition, Depending on stand densities, fuel eficial fire results takes more than approximately 150 acres (60 ha) loads, and previous treatments, the prior mechanical and prescribed had been thinned soon after the North WFU Fire burned with vary- fire treatments. Required elements initial prescribed burning. In the ing intensities and effects. include frequent ignitions; compe- spring of 2005, the area’s lopped tent fire managers; and the support and scattered slash was reburned. Due to an almost total lack of avail- of line officers, specialists, and the able fine fuels, the North WFU Fire public.  Then, in mid-June 2005, the North did not reburn the area of thin- WFU Fire was ignited by lightning.

Wildland Fire Use Makes Headway With U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service John Segar

hile prescribed fire con- At present, several refuges have have a higher proportion of light, tinues to be the U.S. land management and fire manage- flashy fuels. This creates situations W Department of the Interior, ment plans that allow for utilizing in which fires can often spread out- Fish and Wildlife Service’s preferred WFU as an appropriate manage- side refuge boundaries within one means for managing fuels and ment response to natural wildland burning period. In addition, many fire-adapted habitats—the agency fires. Several other refuges are refuges are located adjacent to started using this “tool” to man- considering WFU and are updating wildland/urban interface areas. age wildlife habitat back in the plans to allow this fire use option 1930s—an increasing number of as an appropriate management Refuge utilization of WFU will the service’s refuges are now using response. likely increase as fuel treatments wildland fire use (WFU) as a fire increase the defensibility of values management strategy. Refuge size, flammability, and and boundaries, adjoining land- boundary defensibility are the most owners become more receptive to common reasons why more refuges accepting WFU fires, and agency John Segar is the national fuels coor- have not made greater use of WFU. staff become more proficient in dinator for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Refuges tend to be smaller than managing fires under WFU strate- Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. most other Federal land units and gies. 

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 19 The Fire Use Working Team – A Coordinated, Interagency Effort Tim Sexton

he field of wildland fire management, always in a state of A coordinated, interagency effort is required to T constant change, requires the ensure that fire use programs are implemented in integration of interdisciplinary and interagency efforts to support a professional and competent manner. today’s resource management programs. Merlin McDonald, U.S. The use of both wildland fire use Fire Use Department of the Interior, and prescribed fire to achieve Working Team Bureau of Indian Affairs agency objectives is becoming a sig- Dick Bahr, U.S. Department of the Tim Sexton, USDA Forest Service nificant wildland fire management Interior, National Park Service (Fire Operations) program element. Dave Mueller, U.S. Department Kirk Rowdabaugh, National of the Interior, Bureau of Land Wildfire Coordinating Group The underlying strength of agency Management Liaison fire management programs is the Jeff Stephens, California fundamental understanding of fire Department of Forestry and Fire behavior and fire effects’ roles in Protection Fire Use Working resource management decisions. John Segar, U.S. Department Team Advisors Fire management is as much a of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Cyndie Hogg, National Advanced philosophy and attitude toward the Wildlife Service Fire and Resource Institute land as it is an action program. John Dickenson, South Carolina Woody Kessler, National Fire and Forestry Commission Aviation Training Support The rationale for understanding fire Colin Hardy, USDA Forest Service as an ecosystem process must be (Research) transferred to all resource management activities. This transfer often occurs when we employ fire as a A coordinated, interagency effort is tool. Fire management is therefore required to ensure that as much a philosophy fire use programs are implemented Emphasis and Concerns and attitude toward the in a professional and competent manner. The Fire Use Working The ignition of wildland fuels—by land as it is an action land managers or natural causes— Team is 1 of 10 chartered work- to achieve specific management program. ing teams of the National Wildfire objectives is receiving continued Coordinating Group. The mission emphasis from fire management of this working team is to: specialists, land managers, politi- grams are increasing, concerns are cians, and the general public. Yet, being expressed regarding: • Coordinate and advocate the use at the same time that fire use pro- of wildland fire to achieve land • Associated smoke management management objectives, problems, • Promote a greater understanding Tim Sexton, coordinator for this special of the role of wildland fire and its “fire use” issue of Fire Management Today, • Escape fires, is the fire use program manager for the • Funding, and effects, and USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation • The health and safety of employ- • Recommend and maintain a fire Management, Washington Office, National ees and the general public. use qualification system.  Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID.

Fire Management Today 20 Meeting Forest Ecosystem Objectives with Wildland Fire Use Daniel C. Laughlin and Peter Z. Fulé

he U.S. Department of the Three WFU Fires Interior (USDI), National Park Old-growth forests In 2003, three lightning-initiated Service has been a leading T provide researchers fires were managed by the USDI agency in the application of both National Park Service as WFU fires prescribed fire and wildland fire use a unique setting to to meet resource objectives: (WFU) for resource benefits (van study the role of fire in Wagtendonk 1991; Stephens and forested ecosystems. 1. The Powell Fire. This low- Ruth 2005). intensity surface fire occurred in lower montane ponderosa pine- In 2003, Grand Canyon National of acres of unharvested old-growth Gambel oak forest (see photo), Park fire use modules managed the forests that range from open pon- which has burned naturally largest and most complex group derosa pine groves to dense spruce– several times in the past century of WFU fires in the park’s history, fir–aspen stands. These stands pro- (Fulé and others 2002, 2003a). totaling more than 19,000 acres vide researchers a unique setting (7,690 ha) of North Rim old-growth to study the role of fire in forested 2. The Rose/Big Fire Complex. forests that span from 7,300 to ecosystems. This was an intense surface fire 8,800 feet (2,225 to 2,682 m) in elevation. Old-growth ponderosa pine trees and Since 1997, 202 permanent plots standing snag on have been established in Grand the recently burned Powell Plateau, Grand Canyon National Park to study the Canyon National relationships between: Park. Photo: D. Laughlin, 2004. • Fire history, • Forest structure, • Fuel load, and • Understory plant communities.

The 2003 North Rim fires burned 83 plots across the entire elevation range, providing an excellent opportunity to evaluate low- to mixed-severity fire effects.

The North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park contains thousands

Daniel Laughlin is a plant ecologist at the Ecological Restoration Institute and gradu- ate student in the School of Forestry, and Peter Fulé is an associate professor in the School of Forestry and associate director of the Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 21 with high scorching in upper These wildland nearby unburned reference plots. In montane mixed-conifer forest, fire use fires have each plot we: which has been invaded by fire- intolerant white firs (Fulé and important management • Recorded the species and diam- others 2004). implications for Federal eter of trees, land management • Measured fuel loads using planar 3. The Poplar Fire. This was a agencies. transects, and mixed-severity fire in spruce– • Measured plant cover and species fir–aspen forests that have not composition of the understory burned in more than a century, plant community. To evaluate fire effects—with fund- which is not out of the historic ing from the six-agency partnership range of fire return intervals for Joint Fire Science Program and Management subalpine forests (Turner and the USDA Forest Service—we mea- Implications Romme 1994; Fulé and others sured all of the permanent plots These fires have important man- 2003b). that burned in these three fires and agement implications for Federal

Evaluating Wildland Fire Use Fire Effects Daniel C. Laughlin and Peter Z. Fulé

hree 2003 Grand Canyon reduced both density and basal area in the ponderosa pine forest and National Park fires burned 83 of the forest and trees across all 60 percent in the spruce–fir–aspen T plots across the park’s North diameter classes. forests. Rim old-growth forests that range from open ponderosa pine groves Three of the 18 plots at high eleva- After burning, coarse woody debris to dense spruce–fir–aspen stands tion incurred more than 90-percent averaged 4 tons/acre (9t/ha) in the at 7,300 to 8,800 feet (2,225 to tree mortality. Our permanent ponderosa forest and 10 tons/acre 2,682 m) elevation. plots might underrepresent the (22t/ha) in the spruce–fir–aspen actual proportion of high-sever- forests. In contrast, unburned con- Ignited by lightning, these ity fire in the Poplar Fire. Across trol sites increased in coarse woody fires were managed by the U.S. all elevations, larger trees had a debris loading over the same time Department of the Interior (USDI) higher probability of survival than period, reaching levels of 10 tons/ National Park Service as wildland small trees. Pine and Douglas-fir acre (22t/ha) in the ponderosa for- fire use (WFU) to meet resource had a higher probability of surviv- est and 21 tons/acre (47t/ha) in the objectives. As outlined below, they ing the fire than aspen, white fir, spruce–fir–aspen forests. provided an excellent opportunity Engelmann spruce, or subalpine fir. to evaluate low- to mixed-severity Understory Vegetation fire effects. Fuel Load In ponderosa pine forests, under- Forest floor depth (litter + duff) story plant species richness and Forest Structure declined by an average of 43 per- cover increased slightly 2 years The low-intensity fire in the cent in the ponderosa pine forest after the fire, but was not much dif- ponderosa pine forest reduced and 64 percent in the spruce–fir– ferent than unburned forest. This total tree densities but did not aspen forests. Fine woody debris, suggests that old-growth ponderosa significantly reduce total basal material less than 3 inches (7.6 cm) pine forest plant communities are area because small trees (less than in diameter, was also reduced by resilient to changes in plant abun- 5 cm) were disproportionately 35 percent and 40 percent, respec- dance following surface fire. killed. The mixed-severity fire tively. Coarse woody debris went in the spruce–fir–aspen forests down by an average of 40 percent

Fire Management Today 22 land management agencies. They • Forest floor depth was reduced Fire effects were consistent with were successful, both in terms of by 43 to 64 percent and coarse our general understanding of fire logistical operations and ecological woody fuels were reduced by 40 ecology in these systems. The low- outcomes. Unless they can meet to 60 percent; and intensity fire at low elevation killed resource objectives, WFU fires are • Native plant cover and richness primarily small-diameter pines and not allowed to burn. were not harmed, though com- oaks, whereas the mixed-intensity munity composition was altered fires at high elevation burned with Our study’s results suggest that toward greater occurrence of greater severity, killing trees across many key objectives were met: native annual plants. all diameter classes.

• Forest densities were reduced and large old-growth trees—especially Land managers often face conflicting objectives from fire-resistant species—sur- when managing for native ecosystem dynamics in vived the fire much better than small, younger trees; a time of widespread exotic plant invasions.

The fire induced a shift in com- Changes in forest munity composition toward greater structure, fuel load, and plant diversity in burned occurrence of native annual forbs. and unburned ponderosa The non-native annual cheatgrass pine and spruce–fir–aspen (Bromus tectorum), which was forests before and after wildland fire use. present on Powell Plateau well before the fire, increased in frequency across the plateau after the fire.

In spruce–fir–aspen forests, understory plant richness increased slightly in the burned forests whereas richness declined in the control. Community composition shifted dramatically toward greater occurrence of native annual forbs.

Plant species loss increased with fire severity, though most losses were short-lived. This suggests that plant richness and abundance recovered rapidly after the mixed- severity fire in spruce–fir–aspen forests, but the composition of the community is still different than pre-fire conditions.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 23 Some negative effects, however, Future ignitions can now be managed more easily also occurred. After the fire, the within these burns due to reduced fire intensities frequency of cheatgrass increased across the remote Powell Plateau. and more manageable fire behavior. Cheatgrass has been noted at this site since as early as 1941 (McDougall 1941). We detected a are causes for continued monitor- logical restoration? Restoration Ecology, ing in the park. 12:220–230. post-fire increase in the burned Huisinga, K.D.; Laughlin, D.C.; Fulé, P.Z.; plots. Springer, J.D.; McGlone, C.M. 2005. The Grand Canyon’s never-har- Effects of an intense prescribed fire on vested forests are an important understory vegetation in a mixed conifer Native Ecosystem forest. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Dynamics resource for understanding rela- Society, 132: 590–601. tively undisturbed forest dynamics. Keeley, J.E. 2006. Fire management Land managers often face conflict- Based on the results of the 2003 impacts on invasive plants in the western ing objectives when managing for fires, we recommend the continued United States. Conservation Biology, 20: native ecosystem dynamics in a 375–384. use and monitoring of wildland fire Laughlin, D.C.; Bakker, J.D.; Stoddard, time of widespread exotic plant in these old-growth forests where M.T.; Daniels, M.L.; Springer, J.D.; Gildar, invasions (Keeley 2006). It is uncer- natural processes can still operate C.N.; Green, A.M; Covington, W.W. 2004. tain whether cheatgrass could Toward reference conditions: wildfire at landscape scales. effects on flora in an old-growth pon- significantly affect the natural fire derosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and regime in ponderosa pine forests, References Management, 199:137–152. but it can possibly reduce native Laughlin, D.C.; Bakker, J.D.; Fulé, P.Z. Fulé, P. Z.; Covington, W.W.; Moore, M.M.; plant cover and diversity over time. 2005. Understory plant community struc- Heinlein, T.A.; Waltz, A.E.M. 2002. ture in lower montane and subalpine for- Natural variability in forests of the Grand ests, Grand Canyon National Park, USA. Now that fuels and forest densities Canyon, USA. Journal of Biogeography Journal of Biogeography, 32: 2083–2102. have been reduced by these fires, 29:31–47. McDougall, W.B. 1941. Memorandum to Fulé, P.Z.; Heinlein, T.A.; Covington, Superintendant Bryant, Grand Canyon future ignitions can be managed W.W.; Moore, M.M. 2003a. Assessing fire National Park. July 31, 1941. On file more easily within these burns due regimes on Grand Canyon landscapes in the National Archives and Records to reduced fire intensities and more with fire-scar and fire-record data. Administration, Pacific Region, Laguna International Journal on Wildland Fire, Niguel, CA. manageable fire behavior. Fires on 12:129–145. Stephens, S.L.; Ruth, L.W. 2005. Federal the North Rim have consistently Fulé, P.Z.; Crouse, J.E.; Heinlein, T.A.; forest fire policy in the United States. met resource objectives (Fulé and Moore, M.M.; Covington, W.W.; Verkamp, Ecological Applications, 15:532–542. G. 2003b. Mixed-severity fire regime in others 2004; Laughlin and others Turner, M.G.; Romme, W.H. 1994. a high-elevation forest of Grand Canyon, Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosys- 2004; Huisinga and others 2005), Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology, 18: tems. Landscape Ecology, 9:59–77. though non-native species inva- 465–486. Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1991. The evolution sions and the loss of some old- Fulé, P.Z.; Cocke, A.E.; Heinlein, T.A.; of National Park Service fire policy. Fire Covington, W.W. 2004. Effects of an Management Notes, 52:10–15.  growth trees in mixed-severity fires intense prescribed forest fire: is it eco-

Fire Management Today 24 Reexamining the Role of Lightning in the Landscape Dana Cohen and Bob Dellinger

ightning-ignited fire is often type of fire that shaped the land- underestimated as a signifi- scape we are now trying to manage? L cant force on the landscape in the southern Appalachians. Some Wildland Fire Use researchers assert that the domi- in the Smokies nant forest type is not conducive Until the adoption of WFU in its to large, widespread fires of natural 1996 fire management plan, Great origin, and that “cultural” (anthro- Smoky Mountains National Park pogenic or human-caused) fires had a policy—since its inception in maintained these fire-dependent 1934—of suppressing all fires. communities (Buckner, 1999). Today’s WFU policy enables Recent fire history data supports National Park fire staff to manage this assessment. In Fire History of lightning-caused fires to accom- Great Smoky Mountains National plish resource objectives, providing Park, 1940-1979 (Harmon, 1981), that the fires meet certain pre- the author notes “A total of 618 defined conditions. The National fires started in or near the Great Park Service is the first Federal Smoky Mountains between 1940 land management agency in the and 1979. The majority of these southern Appalachians to address The 1999 Blacksmith Wildland Fire Use fires, both in terms of number (86.6 natural ignitions without suppress- percent) and area burned (97.2 per- Fire burned 523 acres (212 ha) on the far west portion of Great Smoky Mountains ing them. cent), were started by man.” National Park. Photo: Bob Dellinger, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Since the first WFU fire was imple- Yet in this same work, Harmon mented in 1998, fire statistics have makes another note that is often been revealing an impressive lesson overlooked: “The first lightning The success of about the nature of lightning igni- fire that was not extinguished by wildland fire use fires tions in Great Smoky Mountains management in the Great Smoky raises an important National Park. Fire control records Mountains burned 44.5 hectares question. Have we been compiled from 1942 through (110 ac) [Polecat Ridge, 1976]. 1997—55 years worth—indicate This indicated a (wildland fire underestimating the that 1,261 park acres (510 ha) use) policy will increase the mean type of fire that shaped burned due to suppressed light- lightning-caused fire size, but to an the landscape we are ning-ignited fires. Today, in just 9 unknown degree.” now trying to manage? years of selectively suppressing natural ignitions, unsuppressed light- As Great Smoky Mountains ning fires have burned a total of National Park concludes its first decade of implementing wildland 1,143 acres (463 ha). This includes fire use (WFU) policy, it is becom- the experimental Polecat Ridge Dana Cohen is a fire prevention officer for ing clear that the Polecat Ridge Fire of 1976 and fires managed for the USDA Forest Service, North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Fire was not an experimental fluke resource benefit from 1998 to 2005. Fredonia, AZ; Bob Dellinger is a fire or an aberration from an extreme effects monitor for the U.S. Department fire season. The success of WFU From 1942 to 1997, the average of the Interior, National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, fires raises an important question. suppressed lightning-ignited fire Gatlinburg, TN. Have we been underestimating the grew to only 11 acres (4.5 ha),

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 25 while the average unsuppressed Since the first wildland fire use fire was lightning-ignited fire is now 186 implemented in 1998, fire statistics have been acres (75 ha). At press time, the Chilly Springs Fire is being man- revealing an impressive lesson about the nature aged for resource benefit, currently of lightning ignitions in Great Smoky Mountains at approximately 900 acres (360 ha). National Park.

It is important to note that these statistics and studies focus solely The Forney Ridge Fire was declared on August 19, but 429 (174 ha) of on fires that began and remained out on April 27, with a total fire 523 acres (212 ha) burned between within the park. This region’s size of 370 acres (148 ha) over 22 August 29 and September 6 after broader fire history studies reflect days. The majority of fire growth a series of dry cold fronts. Relative a higher yearly average number occurred in the first 3 days of the humidities were variable through- of lightning-ignited fires on the fire. By April 13, the fire’s eighth out the fire, with sporadic drops Cherokee National Forest, located day, there was no growth in fire into the high teens. During the at the park’s southwestern boundary size, although smoldering contin- majority of the fire growth, relative (Barden 1973). This suggests that ued within the burn. humidity remained in the 40s. The lightning-ignited fires might have fire was declared out on September played an even more substantial The April 1999 Collins 2 WFU Fire 22. role in unfragmented landscapes. was notable for burning during the height of the spring wildflower As WFU fires are managed, stud- It is also important to note that the season, backing through moist ied, and observed within Great WFU fires observed in the Smokies drainages and topkilling an unex- Smoky Mountains National Park, have had no management actions pected amount of rhododendron new lessons are continually emerg- that would have increased the fire (Rhododendron maximum) and ing about the role of fire in the acreages. In other words, there have mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). landscape. These fires certainly been no burn-out operations. Fires raise questions about the para- here generally persist until they The largest WFU prior to the Chilly digm of a fire-adapted ecosystem reach flowing creek beds, less flam- Springs WFU Fire was the 523-acre maintained predominantly by cul- mable vegetation, or are rained out. (212 ha) 1999 Blacksmith WFU Fire tural—human-initiated—burning that occurred on the far western practices. Characteristics of portion of the park. The fire began Natural Ignitions Fires in this region have exhibited interesting behavior. The first WFU fire, Forney Ridge, began on April 6, 1998. The fire burned in mesic, old-growth, oak-dominated communities and stopped when it reached tulip poplar/red maple-dominated communities. It burned predominantly through the litter layer and persisted through heavy downed fuels, snags, and stump holes.

The Forney Ridge Fire area received: • Light rain on April 9, • A total of 0.5 inches of snow on April 10, and • Several inches of rain from April Lightning and human-caused fire occurrence at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 18 to 20. 1940 to 1979.

Fire Management Today 26 The Problem with The following are two examples of cies and meeting many of the same Suppression-Era these occurrences: struggles—and no doubt many Lightning Statistics different ones. Sharing the park’s 1. Tunis Ridge Fire, June 1943. experience and understanding the Comparing the park’s recent expe- Fire began on June 8, was first historical role of lightning-ignited riences with WFU to the decades reported on June 9, and “Warden fires will better enable land manag- of suppressed “natural” ignitions Ogle hunted for it on that day ers to define target conditions and raises another important question. and again on June 10, but light provide the toolbox that will help Have we underestimated the role of rains had damped it down, as attain them. nonanthropogenic, “natural” igni- no smoke was visible, he did not tions because of an improper reli- find the fire. Fire was corralled Acknowledgments ance on suppression-era lightning at 2 a.m. on June 12, but kept Leon Konz, Rhonda Watson, Mark Taylor, statistics? breaking over [escaping control Beth Buchanan, Susan Ross, Rob Klein, the line] on mop-up crew on that entire Smokies fire management staff past It’s intuitive to most fire manag- and present, Keith Langdon, Bob Miller, day.” Dale Ditmanson, Caroline Noble, Annette ers that lightning fires often burn Hartigan, Chad Fisher, Nate Benson, Tim slowly and with low intensity at 2. Turkeypen Ridge Fire, April Sexton, Mike Jenkins, Sammy Lail, Mark Harmon, L.S. Barden, E.V. Komarek, and their outset, making them easy to 1971. “During the night of suppress while still small (Barden all of the staff and supporters of Great April 19, a violent thunderstorm Smoky Mountains National Park. 1973, Show 1923). During most of passed over Cades Cove. On the intensive fire suppression era, Turkeypen Ridge, a bolt of light- References staffed fire lookout towers existed ning struck a large hickory tree Barden, L.S.; Woods, F.W. 1973. inside and around the park. This and set it to smoldering. April Characteristics of lightning fires in capability enhanced the ability to 27, in the afternoon, the top of southern Appalachian forests. In: pinpoint the lightning strike and its Proceedings of Tall Timbers fire ecol- the hickory fell, scattering fire ogy conference. Tall Timbers Research subsequent fire while the area was into the dry leaves around it.” Station, Tallahassee, FL. 13: 345–361. still damp from the passing thun- Buckner, E.; Turrill, N. L. 1999. Fire and derstorm. southern Appalachian ecosystem man- Furthermore, in 2004, the Shot agement. In: J. Peine, ed. Ecosystem Beech WFU Fire persisted in a sin- management for sustainability: Principles Suppression-era data reflects this gle hemlock for 35 days, taking on and practices. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: history, with lightning-caused fires a total of 6.5 inches (17 cm) of rain 329–347. accounting for a low percentage of Harmon, M. 1981. Fire history of the Great before it was finally extinguished. Smoky Mountains National Park: 1940– total fire acreage. Unfortunately, 1979. (U.S. Department of the Interior, such information has often led Lightning-ignited fires must be Washington DC, National Park Service) land managers and researchers to NPS–SER Research/resources manage- recognized as significant in shaping ment report No. 46. dismiss the role of lightning, and the landscape, not because they are Komarek, E.V. 1968. The natural history of therefore, of slow-burning, low- key to restoring the park to historic lightning. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers intensity fire within the landscape. fire ecology conference. Tall Timbers or desired conditions—they alone Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 3: will not (Miller 2004). The lessons 139–184. This data is being interpreted and learned from the seasonality, sever- Show, S. B.; Kotok, E. I. 1923. The occur- applied incorrectly when it is used ity, and effects of these fires are a rence of lightning storms in relation to infer that a fire-adapted ecosys- to forest fires in California. Monthly key component on the road toward Weather Review. 51: 175–180. tem must be a result of human- comprehensive landscape manage- Vale, T.R., ed. 2002. Fire, native peoples, caused burning practices. and the natural landscape. Washington, ment. DC: Island Press. Van Lear, D.H.; Waldrop, T.A. 1989. A survey of historical fire reports Implementing a WFU program in History, uses, and effects of fire in the provide myriad examples of light- the Smokies has taken persistence Appalachians. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE–54. ning-caused fires, which appeared Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, and exceptional vision (Barden). Southeastern Research Station.  to have gone out after the initial Other Federal land management smoke report. Yet, several days agencies in the region are currently later, these fires began to smolder attempting to implement WFU poli- again, or even made small runs.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 27 True Story: A 4-Million Acre “Mega” Maximum Manageable Area Jacquie M. Parks

ust the thought and sound of Dictionary Definition of “Mega” the words “mega” maximum Mega: manageable area (MMA) can put (From the Greek: “great.”) Surpassing others of its kind. J Extraordinary. Extended. Powerful. fear into the hearts of line officers, decisionmakers, and fire management personnel everywhere. • The Payette National Forest, The intent of this • The Clearwater National Forest, But—before describing this “mega” collaboration was • Nez Perce National Forest, and component—first, a quick review. • The Boise National Forest. What is a MMA? to use a shared fire management approach To facilitate effective communica- The wildland fire community and philosophy along the tion and coordination of the fire knows that the MMA delineates the common boundaries of events occurring within the wil- geographic limits of the fire area the various forests. derness areas of central Idaho and as defined by the capability of man- Montana, this group developed agement actions to meet resource a working draft Central Idaho objectives and mitigate risk. Once table). Help was called in. First, Wildland Fire Use Management established as part of an approved with Byron Bonney’s fire use man- Complex Operating Guide. The fire use plan, this general impact agement team, followed by Wayne intent of this collaboration was area is fixed and is usually not sub- Cook’s fire use management team. to use a shared fire management ject to change. With adjacent forest resources also approach and philosophy along busy with fire use, a WFU working the common boundaries of the The 2005 fire use season, although group was also called into action. various forests. This working considered average by some, was draft addressed portions of the in full swing on the Bitterroot Shared Management Frank Church River of No Return National Forest. By August 1, the Approach Wilderness, the Selway-Bitterroot forest already had 13 wildland fire Wilderness, and contiguous por- The WFU working group called a use (WFU) fires. As operational tions of each forest that allowed meeting that gathered line offi- tempo began to increase, for 9 days WFU—both inside as well as out- cers and fire managers from both beginning August 1, a total of 25 side wilderness areas. fires were designated as WFU. For the Northern and Intermountain the first time in the forest’s exten- Regions, representing six neighboring national forests: “Mega” Decision sive fire use history, all four of its Is Made districts were simultaneously managing WFU—in addition to sup- • The Bitterroot National Forest, The outcome: A MMA that con- pression events. • The Salmon-Challis National sisted of roughly 4 million acres Forest, Continued on page 31 After assessing its Selway–Salmon WFU Complex situation, the forest “This MMA made sense because fire doesn’t know the difference decided it had exceeded the limits between regional and forest boundaries. Why should a fire be converted of its management capability (see from WFU status to a wildfire if it crosses an administrative boundary? People need to understand that just because you draw an MMA on the map—does not mean that you are going to allow the fire to burn to it.” Jacquie Parks is the assistant fire management officer for the USDA Forest Service, –Byron Bonney, Fire Use Manager, West Fork Ranger District, Bitterroot Selway–Salmon Wildland Fire Use Complex, 2005 National Forest, Darby, MT.

Fire Management Today 28 Selway/Salmon Wildland Fire Use Complex – Wildland Fire Use Fires 9/10/05 0700

Stage Potential Anticipated Fire # Fire Name Start Date Area Lat Long Legal Size Growth Completed Threats Resource Needs 5039 Wapiti 7/28/2005 SBW 45°53.2 -114°42.19 30N 14E 27 1131.08 +0.00 Stage 3 White Cap Trail Air Patrol NWSW approved Cooper Flat G.S. Fire Use Module 5037 Cedar- 7/28/2005 SBW 45°53.54 -114°39.29 30N 14E 36 1777.54 +7.97 Stage 3 White Cap Trail Air Patrol Barefoot NWNE approved Cooper Flat G.S. Fire Use Module 5204 Mt. George 8/22/2005 SBW 45’55.77 114’38.16 30N 15E 19 858.87 +3.54 Stage 2 Trail 50 Air Patrol NWNW approved 5147 (3) Haystack 8/9/2005 SBW 45°42.51 -114°44.52 27N 14E 4 0.00 +0.00 Stage 3 N/A Air Patrol NW cent approved 5060 Beaverjack 8/1/2005 SBW 45°44.86 -114°42.6 28N 14E 35 7244.42 +11.94 Stage 3 Magruder/ Air Patrol NWSE approved Elk City Road Fire Use Module Kim Creek Trail #26 Imp/Struc Prot Selway River Trail #4 Road Patrol 5107 Pole Mtn 8/6/2005 FCRONR 45°41.07 -114°38.38 27N 15E 18 9.48 +0.00 Stage 3 Hell’s Half Acre LO Air Patrol SENE approved 5108 Pole Two 8/6/2005 FCRONR 45°41.28 -114°38.96 27N 15E 7 0.10 +0.00 Stage 3 Hell’s Half Acre LO Air Patrol approved 5063 Upper Burn 8/1/2005 FCRONR 45°37.73 -114°39.13 27N 15E 31 0.50 +0.00 Stage 3 Hell’s Half Acre LO Air Patrol SESW approved 5064 Lower Burn 8/1/2005 FCRONR 45°37.19 -114°39.92 26N 14E 1 1086.22 +25.72 Stage 3 Hell’s Half Acre LO Air Patrol approved Trail 65 Fire Use Module Lookout Protection 5065 Trail #65 8/1/2005 FCRONR 45°38.7 -114°39.02 27N 15E 30 0.10 +0.00 Stage 3 Hell’s Half Acre LO Air Patrol approved 5110 Trail #62 8/6/2005 FCRONR 45°41.51 -114°41.3 27N 14E 11 0.10 +0.00 Stage 3 N/A Air Patrol Center approved 5106 Hells Half 8/5/2005 FCRONR 45°40.14 -114°39.26 27N 14E 13 797.45 +14.99 Stage 3 Hell’s Half Acre LO Air Patrol Acre Cr SESE approved Trail #12 5112 Pasture 8/16/2005 FCRONR 45°41.83 -114°42.04 27N 14E 11 0.10 +0.00 Stage 3 Trail #62 Air Patrol Ridge NW approved 5149 (2) Gabe 8/9/2005 SBW 45°43.25 -114°40.27 28N 14E 36 0.00 +0.00 Magruder/ Air Patrol Creek SWNW Elk City Road 5080 Elk Lake 8/1/2005 SBW 46°2.288 -114°26.586 3N 23W 3 701.64 +0.00 Stage 3 N/A Air Patrol NENW approved 5075 El Capitan 8/1/2005 SBW 45°59.887 -114°26.531 3N 23W 15 1405.01 +0.00 Stage 3 N/A Air Patrol SESW approved 5132 Spot 8/8/2005 SBW 45°47.14 -114°51.37 28N 13E 15 355.76 +0.00 Stage 2 Trail #3, Spot Air Patrol Mountain NWNE approved Mtn Lookout 5156 Pyramid 8/9/2005 SBW 45°46.85 -114°50.11 28N 13E 10 319.60 +0.00 Stage 2 Trail #3, Spot Air Patrol Peak NENW approved Mtn Lookout 5175 Green Spot 8/6/2005 SBW 45°48.23 -114°51.06 29N 13E 33 356.64 +0.00 Stage 2 Trail #3, Trail #40 Air Patrol NESE approved S-C Reynolds 8/6/2005 FCRONR 45°32.32 -114°36.15 26N 16E 28 3847.65 +50.98 Stage 2 Reynolds Lk CG Air Patrol fire SW approved Trails #18, #68, #31 Gattin Ranch 5123 (1) Wilk 8/7/2005 FCRONR 45°33.052 -114°34.213 26N 15E 35 0.00 +0.00 Stage 2 N/A Air Patrol Head NWNW approved 5111 (5)Mist 8/6/2005 FCRONR 45°31.98 -114°36.44 25N 15E 4 0.00 +0.00 Stage 2 N/A Air Patrol Creek NW approved 5113 Stripe Creek 8/1/2005 FCRONR 45°30.074 -114°44.803 25N 14E 16 4278.77 +27.61 Stage 2 Trails #19, #4, #80 Air Patrol SENE approved 5076 Stripe 8/2/2005 FCRONR 45°30.75 -114°47.6 25N 14E 18 0.10 +0.00 Stage 2 N/A Air Patrol Mountain SWNW approved 5139 Thirteen 8/9/2005 FCRONR 45°32.5 -114°44.41 26N 14E 33 0.10 +0.00 Stage 2 N/A Air Patrol Creek SW approved 5109 (4)Hidden 8/6/2005 FCRONR 45°29.63 -114°43.17 25N 14E 14 0.00 +0.00 Stage 2 N/A Air Patrol Creek SE approved Continued on next page

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 29 Selway/Salmon Wildland Fire Use Complex – Wildland Fire Use Fires 9/10/05 0700 (Continued)

Stage Potential Anticipated Fire # Fire Name Start Date Area Lat Long Legal Size Growth Completed Threats Resource Needs 5085 *Thirsty 7/30/2005 FCRONR 45°30.18 -114°52.51 25N 13E 22 166.36 +0.00 Stage 2 Swet Lake Cabin, Air Patrol Ridge approved Trail #9 5090 Dennis Lake 8/1/2005 FCRONR 45°32.19 -114°52.2 25N 13E 4 10.00 +0.00 Stage 2 Swet Lake Cabin, Air Patrol NWNW approved Trail #29 5062 Arrow Creek 8/1/2005 FCRONR 45°34.76 -114°51.48 26N 13E 27 59.96 +0.00 Stage 2 N/A Air Patrol NW approved 5025 Sentimental 7/22/2005 SBW 45°47.49 -114°24.81 1N 23W 35 1.00 +0.00 Stage 2 Wilderness/ Air Patrol NWNE approved WFU boundary 5047 (7) 7/30/2005 SBW 45°41.81 -114°54.09 27N 13E 7 0.00 0.00 Stage 2 Trail #61 Air Patrol Lodgepole Center approved Hump 5124 Sabe 8/7/2005 SBW 45°39.56 -114°56.27 27N 12E 23 0.10 +0.00 Stage 1 Trail #61 Air Patrol Mountain NWSE approved 5161 Dry Saddle 8/12/2005 SBW 45°40.74 -114°58.44 27N 12E 16 0.10 +0.00 Stage 1 N/A Air Patrol SENW approved N-P Burnt 8/10/2005 SWB 45’42.009 115’0.61 27NR12E6 8580.10 +0.00 Stage 3 Horse Heaven Air Patrol / fire approved (historic cabin) Structure Burnt Knob Lookout Protection Magruder Rd. T2 Crew / FUM / Trail #26 Road Patrol 5192 Halfway 8/23/2005 SBW 45’42.84 114’35.78 27N 16E 3 165.08 +0.81 Stage 2 Pete Creek/ Air Patrol Creek NW approved Magruder Rd. Kit Carson 5181 Nez Perce 8/22/2005 SBW 45°43.91 -114°30.71 28N 15E 22 262.66 +19.26 Stage 2 Trail #13 Air Patrol Peak Center approved 5099 (6) Cayuse 8/6/2005 SBW 45°44.09 -114°36.35 28N 15E 28 0.00 +0.00 Stage 1 N/A Air Patrol Creek NE approved 5134 Burnt Strip 8/9/2005 SBW 45°50.55 -114°39.77 29N 14E 24 905.38 +20.11 Stage 1 Trails #10, #5 Air Patrol Mtn NENE approved 5202 Snake 8/22/2005 SBW 45’50.6 114’40.5 29N R14E 0.10 +0.00 Stage 1 Trails #10, #5 Air Patrol 24NWNW approved 5092 Scofield 8/1/2005 SBW 45°49.32 -114°38.11 29N 15E 29 3.00 +0.00 Stage 1 N/A Air Patrol Ridge NWSW approved 5074 Fire 8/1/2005 SBW 45°48.934 -114°47.393 29N 13E 25 60.90 +0.00 Stage 1 N/A Air Patrol Mountain NWSE approved 5086 Goat 7/30/2005 FCRONR 45°36.56 -114°49.15 26N 13E 11 0.10 +0.00 Stage 1 N/A Air Patrol Mountain NW approved 5089 Falls Creek 8/5/2005 SBW 45°54.94 -114°30.94 30N 16E 30 0.10 +0.00 Stage 1 Trail #46 Air Patrol NWNW approved 5153 (8) 8/10/2005 SBW 45°50.04 -114°32.98 29N 15E 19 0.00 0.00 Stage 1 Trail #23 Air Patrol Watchtower SW 5155 Little 8/10/2005 SBW 45°46.4 -114°48.58 28N 13E 11 0.10 +0.00 Stage 1 N/A Air Patrol Pyramid SENE approved 5157 White Cap 8/10/2005 SBW 45°53.34 -114°26.08 30N 16E 34 160.28 +0.86 Stage 1 Trail #2 Air Patrol Lake SWNE approved 5164 Upper 8/10/2005 SBW 45°51.59 -114°28.076 29N 16E 9 251.82 +13.11 Stage 1 Trail #2 Air Patrol Canyon NWNW approved Creek 5165 Upper White 8/10/2005 SBW 45°56.81 -114°29.25 30N 16E 8 163.50 +5.91 Stage 1 Trail #2 Air Patrol Cap SESW approved 5167 Granite 8/10/2005 SBW 45°56.16 -114°30.71 30N 16E 18 19.59 +0.56 Stage 1 N/A Air Patrol Creek NWSE approved 5191 Watch It 8/22/2005 SBW 45’49.90 114’32.33 29N 15E 24 738.21 +2.07 Stage 1 Trail 23 Air Patrol NENE approved 5208 Sweeney 8/22/2005 SBW 45’36.70 -114°16.84 10N 21W 65.00 +0.00 Stage 2 Air Patrol Lake 19NENE approved

Fire Management Today 30 Continued from page 28 (1,618,749 ha) of fire use? No. But Because this (1,618,749 ha) of allowable WFU it did provide the opportunity to 4-million acre maximum glimpse the possibility of what (see map). Because this MMA was manageable area was considered to be so large in scale, wildland fire use could be. Even so, someone dubbed it a “mega MMA.” not everyone was thrilled with this considered to be so The term stuck. mega MMA concept. large in scale, someone dubbed it a “mega Concerns arose such as how an Did this mean that we were going MMA.” to actually allow 4 million acres individual was to understand

116°0'0"W 115°50'0"W 115°40'0"W 115°30'0"W 115°20'0"W 115°10'0"W 115°0'0"W 114°50'0"W 114°40'0"W 114°30'0"W 114°20'0"W 9019164°10'0"W 114°0'0"W 113°50'0"W 113°40'0"W 113°30'0"W The 4-million acre Florence Sweeney Lake WELCOME Headquarters LOLO CREEK J PASS O “mega” MMA. Central Idaho/Montana WILDERNESS H r 5254 e N iv Rocky Pt R k Wildland Fire Use Management N "

MOCCASIN 0 '

POWELL 0 3

PEAK Stevensville °

L 6

S 4 6760 Bu O Devil rn A Complex t N

P G N r F " e o GG 0 iv r P QUI ' R Big k 0 Lucky 13 3 Pierce Morning Draft H K ° PEA 6 4 I 19 Miles Cr R 84 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 E R Cooperation o Victor c Mocus Pt k GRAVE

PEAK o LeJgend o Legendim 8287 r r

k Freezout N

e "

e 0 a t

Fire Perimiter '

e s t Grey Stone Big Sands 0 F r h i C 2 o C c Helix r ° B r o 6 L M 4 WeipRp1e, R4 d& R6 Approximate Boundary Fire Perimiter T C Sponge Creek EST TERROOT N r NAL FOR Cedar BIT N CLEARWATER NATIO S " l C e Mil reek 0 MMA Boundary ' e 0

2 k Lochsa Peak °

6 AHO 4 WFU Fires R1, R4 & R6 SKALK PASS Lolo S ximate Boundary Wounded Doe ELWAY 258 N S S 7 I Hamilton rk A C N Fo C Symbol T r e T L Bell Point e E MMA Boundary N rk M e k A Active Fo oo s R U se M W o O o r E N oarin C N A C R g t a " Lion s 0 M ' T Suppression M s t r e 0 E 1 Wahoo ° Saddle Fork W k 6 R Fork r F 4 Out o k WFU Fires F

N Signal Rock " E 0 ' no 0

1 ATIONAL ° N M 6 FREEMAN 4 Kooskia Lowell Symbol PEAK O M s U IDD 7294 s Active LE FORK o N R T R Suppression FENN y OSE Rockin A PrepIared by Region One Cartography a MO lw DARBY RS I USDAV Forest Service Se CREEK N MissoE Ouula, Mtt CB Ranch S R OOT 9 September 2005 BITTERR Lake N no Darby " Como 0 '

Ditch Creek Ridge Top 0 °

Elk Lake 6

M 4 Penny R e Brushy Fork E a L d N Copper Creek T " o Wylies N 0

' I w El Capitan 0 Cr P ° 6

4 Prepared by Region One Cartography Elk Creek Z PERCE BILK MTN Granite Creek USDA Forest Service NE E 654 Upper White Cap Running Lake 7 R p FOREST G S Mt George a N S Boxcar i E Missoula, Mt China Ten v C A e Falls Creek TRAPPER A N 9 September 2005 r D R R Cedar-Barefoot White Cap Lake PEAK N E Meadow O D PILOT te 10157 E C IL Long Praire Wapiti Whi a A Boulder s W KNOB t N N 3388 " Cr A 0 eek rk ' 7135 o 0 ERNESS F 5 WILD ° Blackerby Upper Canyon Creek LA SU 5 Watchtower Snake Sula 4 Watchit PEAK A D

N SO Burnt Strip Mountain 6191 N " U reek

0 T C ' H Elk City O 0 C 5 Scofield Ridge Sentimental Creek ° Green Spot A

5 Fire Mountain K k WEST 4 R N O r F Little Pyramid FORK A Indi o J an F o

h Spot Mountain Pyramid Peak

n T

s Wheeler Meadow 2 Beaver Jack Nez Perce Peak ST TRAIL er O LO C R v GRUDER i MA ASS 6995 Fork r R P MAGRUDER O E Burnt MTN rth Upper Meadow GUARD STA No R Painted T 7482 Halfway Creek N "

Pole Two 0

R ' R A e cks L 0 d Ro 4

° E Pole Mtn Dam 5 W Deep reek 4

Bleak C T

Trail #62

R Pasture Ridge T N "

Hells Half I 0 ' Trail #65 Creek

0 A FOREST Sabe Mtn

R B 4 ° AL

5 N NATIO Taylor E Lower Burn Hell's Half 4

Spread Point Elk City WFU n t

L Upper Burn s o

Goat Mountain e

m l

C W Rainey a

Noble F NO RETURN Goat S GOSPEL FRANK CHURCH RIVER O BIG HOLE Mallard Falls Arrow Creek ASS r OREGON P Center C Rattlesnake Reynolds 2 7236 BUTTE Herman WILDERNESS Thirteen Creek

Reynolds 1 N

Dennis Lake "

Bear Point 0 Fawn 8463 ' r Catherdral Rock 0 C Stripe Creek 3

Jimmy Reynolds ° Sandy HUMP 5 WAUGH k e 4 Stripe Mountain r South Prospect Caterdral 2 k Arlington MTN o a d N Butte Lake F L " Rock e BURNT 8882 0 E . ' k Thirsty Ridge BLU 0 o NOB N

3 K

° o NOSE

5 r

4 7357 SSES WILDERNESS C 8677 ULY R MTN Bear Creak IV Big E Shell 7649 R North Fork Mustang SA -CHALLIS L SALMON r M Little Fivemile e O iv NORTH FORK N R Root Creek

r N RANGER STA C " 0 ' 0 2

RICK ° 5 UTTE er 4 8841 in N

" M

0 Starvation Creek n ' o 0 lm

2 Kitchen a

° S

5 Thomas Creek 4 MOSQUITO Bay TE PEAK BEAR PE S MTN 8732 a Cliffside HORSE l 8751 COLD m Stoddard VEN o k West Fork HEA r MTN Roaring Goat n o 084 8086 F 8 B Hancock AYETTE NATIONAL FOREST Papoose P Goat Mountain IONAL E NAT N Stoddard Lookout A " 0 '

Salmon V 0

h L 1 t e E °

m 5

u Wolf Fang Joe Creek hi 4 o k R S r Golden H S o N

" E e F 0 ' c A 0 Hazard LR ake WFU

1 e

° D r s i 5 h 113°20'0"W 113°10'0"W 113°0'0"W v 112°50'0"W 112°40'0"W 4 e e v i r R OF NO RETURN R FRANK CHURCH RIVER iv e e t r t e R y Center Mountain a i v P e Nine Shot

r N N " ESS " WILDERN 0 ' 0 OREST '

F 0 0 ° ° 8

k 5 4

r 4 N

Prospect " o 0 '

F 0 ° 8 N 4 " 0 '

0 Rush Creek ° 5 4 Missouri Ridge Fork t Black Pole Eas S po S tte IS o d LEW u t N h B o ear r N

t N "

h " 0 ' 0 Limestone Peak R ' 0 0 5

Legend i 5 °

v ° 7

e 4 4 N South Fork Norton HEAD 4 " FLAT r AND 0 ' 0 5 ° N 7 " BOB 4 0 ' e 0 l 5 Fire Perimiter White Marble

° F d

4 d 4 o i F r M o k r CLARK F k o r R1, R4 & R6 South Fork k Approximate Boundary r

e Brushy Park Kelly Point EST v FOR i S N N r AL u " ION " R AT N 0

e ' 0 v n ' 0 i Hazard Lake 0 4

G 4 R °

MMA Boundary °

o 7 4 N l MARSHALL 4 4 d " R 0 ' i R 0 v apid 4 e °

N r e W " Fork BOISE 7 iv r ibson 0 4 R G '

0 e 4 ° F NAL s P Reservoir 4 ATIO N t k 4 a la h r r WFU Fires e t s o h i v e m F i a e S R d ro ite i n R h u W S i NATIONAL v Fork Symbol e r S r o e u N

Active N "

v t " 0

i h ' 0 ' 0

WILDERNESS 0

R 3

R 3 ° Suppression Silver Moon iv ° 7 e Challies 4 4 N

r 4

t " t 0 ' e Cascade 0

Out 3 y ° N " a 7 F 0 4 ' FOREST 0 P o 3 no r Elk Meadow ° R k e r 4 n k iv 4 r v e i New Creek o r o k D R me a S F le r n u e a a l G C h n ordo S d n er d i

M R i Prepared by Region One Cartographd y v o FOREST e o C r N N " "

r 0

w 0 ' USDA Forest Service ' e 0

d 0 2

e 2 °

a °

k 7 e 4 N 4 4

Missoula, Mt " 0

D ' 0 2 ° N

" 9 September 2005 7 0 4 ' 0

2 113°20'0"W 113°10'0"W 113°0'0"W 112°50'0"W 112°40'0"W ° 4 4 116°0'0"W 115°50'0"W 115°40'0"W 115°30'0"W 115°20'0"W 115°10'0"W 115°0'0"W 114°50'0"W 114°40'0"W 114°30'0"W 114°20'0"W 114°10'0"W 114°0'0"W 113°50'0"W 113°40'0"W

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 31 Not everyone was Helpful Hints for Determining thrilled with this mega Your Next MMA maximum manageable The “C.A.R.E.” concept— Recognize area concept. Communicate, Act, Recognize, • Recognize the capability and Evaluate—is based on a project limitations of your WFU pro- that evolved from the USDA the big (mega) picture and know gram. Forest Service Northern Region’s when to say “enough is enough.” • Recognize that not everyone will “Exploring Leadership Workshop” Suppression events that were hap- agree with the concept. To make held in Missoula, MT, in November pening within the MMA added addi- a better decision in maximum 2005 and January and February tional risk. Increasing situational manageable area (MMA) devel- 2006. (For more information, complexity—compounded by the opment, listen effectively and contact Harvey Hergett at 406- sheer size of this MMA—could address concerns. 329-3172.) mean a potential threat to any successful fire use program if not han- Evaluate Communicate dled with “C.A.R.E.” (see sidebar). • Evaluate your MMA options: Is • Develop good operating plan it definable, defendable, and can guidance for wildland fire use Byron Bonney, the fire use manager it be effectively managed? (WFU). involved with managing a portion • Evaluate each fire event by • Know your neighbors. Good of the mega MMA, explained: “It itself. Not every fire is a good cooperation and communication made sense because fire doesn’t WFU candidate. is essential. Identify common know the difference between • Realize situational complexity fire use boundaries. regional and forest boundaries. will increase. Wildland fire use • Communicate clearly and often. Why should a fire be converted is not for the “faint of heart.” Identify the meaning of large— from WFU status to a wildfire if it It’s tiring; it requires C.A.R.E. “mega”—for your fire use pro- crosses an administrative bound- in thinking and planning and in gram. ary? People need to understand that knowing the full consequences just because you draw an MMA on of the decisions being made. the map—does not mean that you Act • Decide what “mega” means. are going to allow the fire to burn • Ask for help early in the process. It may mean 4 million acres to it.” • Follow your gut instinct. Just (1,618,749 ha) for some, or because a map says you can— much, much less for others. Multi-state and regional coordina- doesn’t mean that you should. tion—buttressed by constant and effective communication—made this WFU opportunity work. The size of this Northern Rockies mega Did this mean that we were going to actually allow MMA may not be applicable every- 4-million acres of fire use? No. But it did provide where. But the concepts that made the opportunity to glimpse the possibility of what it successful can be applied to all MMAs—regardless of their size.  wildland fire use could be.

Fire Management Today 32 Management Action on the Wooley Fire Is the Appropriate One Guy E. Lewis

t is the evening of September 20, 2005. An aerial observer I calls the Yreka Interagency Communication Center in northern California to report a fire in the Klamath National Forest’s Marble Mountain Wilderness.

The 2-acre (0.9-ha) fire is burning actively on a heavily timbered mid- slope above Wooley Creek, a major tributary of the Salmon River. A combination of darkness and the fire’s remote location delays further action until the following day.

Early the next morning, the Wooley Fire is now 30 acres (12 ha). And, it is still spreading.

The Klamath National Forest is The Wooley Fire, burning in a rugged, remote corner of the Klamath National Forest, in its second year of implement- presents land managers with a perplexing challenge of how it should be categorized and managed. Photo: Ray Haupt, USDA Forest Service, District Ranger, Scott/Salmon Ranger ing wildland fire use (WFU) as District, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. called for in its land and resource management plan. As the morning progresses, fire managers work on Once fires are established on the western portion completing the Wooley Fire’s “strategic fire sizeup” so that the Scott/ of the Klamath National Forest, the pattern Salmon Ranger District’s district becomes a long-term commitment of resources, ranger can complete the necessary overhead teams, and expenditures. decision criteria checklist in stage one of the wildland fire implementation plan (WFIP). mated lightning detection system Local managers are well aware of shows no lightning strikes in the the Klamath Mountains’ past fire But, unfortunately, there’s a catch. vicinity of the Wooley Fire for the suppression history. Once fires are last 2 months. established on the western portion Natural Ignition – of the Klamath National Forest, To Be or Not to Be? For the fire to be considered a WFU the pattern becomes a long-term For several weeks, no thunder- candidate—before the line officer commitment of resources, over- storms have been observed any- can authorize a WFU response—the head teams, and expenditures. where on the forest. What’s more, sizeup must determine that a fire is Around the country today, many a review of records from the auto- a natural ignition. Considering the firefighters—as well as former fire- available information, a suppression fighters—have vivid memories of Guy Lewis is a fire planning specialist for response appears to be the district fighting fire in northern California the USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. ranger’s only option. and being exposed to its inherent

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 33 hazards of fire, unforgiving terrain, When it comes to what to do with the Wooley poison oak, insects, and poisonous Fire, there is no shortage of issues and concerns snakes. that confront local land managers. But perhaps the greatest threat that surrounds fire suppression in this region is the adverse effect of living Appropriate ment response,” the complete spec- and working under its omnipresent Management Response trum of options—from monitoring smoke inversions. This well-known to full suppression—is available Fortunately, it is soon determined condition hampers air as well as when supported by the wildland fire that another management oppor- tactical and logistical operations. It situation analysis (WFSA). tunity exists for addressing the makes life difficult for residents and Wooley Fire. Current fire policy firefighters alike. Thus, it is decided to order Gary allows another option to meet Cones’ Great Basin Fire Use objectives for this fire. Under the Issues Confronting Management Team to manage this umbrella of “appropriate manage- Land Managers fire. When it comes to what to do with Fire progression the Wooley Fire, there is no short- of the 3,131- age of issues and concerns that acre (1,268 ha) confront local land managers, Wooley Fire. including:

• Ensuring firefighter safety and well-being is the first priority, • Reducing potential threats to cultural resources important to local Indian tribes, • Alleviating smoke effects on local communities, • Mitigating negative impacts to threatened and endangered species such as the northern spotted owl and spring Chinook salmon habitat, • Adhering to and protecting wilderness values and principles, and • Implementing a cost-effective management response.

In the past, the response to such a fire would be to order a type 2—or even type 1—incident management team along with numerous resources to lay siege to the fire. Today, however, local managers are disappointed that—due to the unknown origin of the fire—WFU is not an option.

Fire Management Today 34 Fire Use Management through an assigned fire behavior utilize the concept of a “maximum Team Flexibility analyst, long-term fire analyst, and confinement boundary” rather FARSITE and RERAP (information than maximum management area Fire use management teams system) technical specialists. (MMA), which would have been were developed specifically to used on a true WFU event. manage wildland fire use (WFU). However, when not assigned to a Two Processes Melded The Wooley Fire burns a total of WFU, they have been available for The Klamath National Forest 3,131 acres (1,268 ha) and costs and have been assigned to “sup- decided to manage the Wooley Fire $396,666 to manage—averaging pression-strategy” wildfires. in the appropriate management response matrix’s “lower impact $126.69 per acre ($313 p ha). Conversely, at least one type 2 zone.” While it is also determined incident management team has Positive Experience been assigned to manage a WFU. In the end, the land could not tell In the past, the what policy was used. The fire did The first priority for fire use response to such what it was going to do. Ground management teams remains a fire would be to operations were limited to primar- WFU. They were established to be ily monitoring fire behavior and utilized up until that time when order a type 2—or effects, with very minimal suppres- all incident management teams even type 1—incident sion actions taken. are skilled, configured, and avail- management team able to manage all types of inci- along with numerous While this wasn’t a WFU fire, the dents, including WFU. forest benefited from the flexibility resources to lay siege of the appropriate management to the fire. response policy and was successful Fire use teams come with a fully in working through the policies of qualified type 2 incident com- the WFSA/WFIP process. mander and general staff, with that the WFIP process is more other positions being filled as nec- appropriate for this incident, policy In the final analysis, the Wooley essary. These teams are experienced dictates that the WFSA process Fire proved to be a positive expe- in low-impact, minimum-resource must nonetheless be used. rience for both firefighters and use, as well as low-cost expenditure resource managers. The local pub- operations in remote settings. The fire use team is therefore lic also benefited. Its members were tasked with melding the WFIP very understanding and supportive In addition, the fire use team’s fire process into the WFSA process so of the Klamath National Forest behavior unit is expected to provide that the agency administrator vali- doing what is right for the land— long-term fire behavior modeling dates only one process each day. with their tax dollars in mind.  The Wooley Fire managers also

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 35 Prescribed Fire Is Main Fire Use Occurring in Southeastern States John Dickinson

his country’s Southeastern States do not allow wildland The range of prescribed fire spans from minimal T fire use on State or private to hundreds of thousands of acres burned each lands. South Carolina, for instance, requires that all wildland fire—both year under a prescription. naturally and human-caused—be controlled. It is only allowed in this to hundreds of thousands of acres 128 prescribed burns for 3,998 State when the landowner accepts burned each year under a prescrip- acres (1,618 ha). direct responsibility for the fire tion. and takes the appropriate steps to Last year in South Carolina, ensure that it doesn’t cross prop- Of the eight (Alabama, Arkansas, 532,129 acres (215,345 ha) of erty lines. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, forestry, wildlife, and agriculture South Carolina, Tennessee, and burns were completed. A wide range of prescribed fire Virginia) out of 13 reporting on State and private lands is the Southeast States in a 2005 data Prescribed fire is the only viable only accepted use of wildland fire survey, the average number of method of fire use in these States within these States. The range of prescribed fires for that year was where landownership is mostly prescribed fire spans from minimal 32,257 per state, with an average of private, the size of these private 591,175 acres (239,241 ha) burned ownerships averages less than 100 John Dickinson is the Pee Dee Regional Forester with the South Carolina Forestry per state. Florida had the most acres (40 ha) per landowner, and Commission, Columbia, SC. He is a mem- acreage with 166,056 burns, rep- wildland/urban interface areas are ber of the National Wildfire Coordinating resenting 2,050,874 acres (829,963 intermixed among these owner- Group’s Fire Use Working Team. ha). Virginia had the lowest with ships. 

Fire Management Today 36 Wildland Fire Use Expected To Increase Across Bureau of Land Management Lands

David Mueller

ire use” within the Wildland fire use is expected to Department of the Interior, Wildland fire use is increase across BLM lands as its “F Bureau of Land Management used to implement managers become more familiar (BLM) includes both prescribed fire land management with utilizing fire to meet land and wildland fire use (WFU). Using management objectives under the fire to meet land management objectives identified in bureau’s policies, planning, and objectives has always been a part of the agency’s land use implementation requirements. BLM activities. plans and supported by its approved fire During fiscal year 2003, the BLM’s With the inception of the 2001 “Unaweep Fire Use Module”—the National Fire Plan, the BLM for- management plans. agency’s first and only fire use mally created its hazardous fuels module at this time—was created program through the allocation of to fill a critical void in the Bureau’s funds directly to fuels management ha) are available, with 2.8 million budding fire use program. After activities. The BLM has since used acres (1,133,125 ha) designated for the 2003 fire season, the module prescribed fire to treat 508,800 WFU treatment, annually. Since received national certification. acres (205,905 ha) in the wildland/ 2001, 944,300 acres (944,300 ha) During the past 3 years, it has urban interface and 603,900 acres have been treated with WFU in been assigned to numerous fire (244,390 ha) for ecosystem restora- Alaska, and 45,600 acres (18,454 use events in New Mexico, Arizona, tion. ha) in the lower 48 States. Idaho, Montana, and Colorado. 

Planning and implementing WFU on BLM lands is relatively new. Under BLM policy, WFU is used to implement land management objectives identified in the agency’s land use plans and supported by its approved fire management plans.

The agency’s land use plans currently permit WFU on 78 million acres (31,565,600 ha), or 30 percent of its land base. From this total acreage, Alaska has approximately 57 million acres (23,067,174 ha) available for WFU.

In the lower 48 States, approximately 21 million acres (8,498,433

David Mueller is a fuels management specialist for the U.S. Department of the Smoke column from the 2004 wildland/urban interface Greasewood Wildland Fire Use Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fire in Meeker, CO. Photo: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 2004.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 37 Almost the Same Age: Prescribed Fire Program and Forest Service Tim Sexton

he USDA Forest Service has (183 ha). During this time period, implemented prescribed fire for All Forest Service the Forest Service’s Southeast T a variety of reasons for almost regions now have Region had the greatest prescribed as long as the agency has existed. strategies designed to fire accomplishment. That region’s Throughout most of the twentieth average burn unit size was more century, prescribed fire was used reduce wildfire hazard than 800 acres (324 ha). While to reduce hazard fuel that had primarily through some regions burned almost as been created through management the application of many units, they only accrued actions such as timber sales. prescribed fire. about 10 percent of the Southern Region’s total burn acres. Late in the twentieth century, prescribed fire began to be applied burn units and the amount of wild- Excluding its Southern Region’s to accumulations of natural fuels. land fire use. totals, the average burn unit size With the implementation of the for the Forest Service during the 2001 National Fire Plan, this man- From 2003 to 2005, the average last 3 years was less than 250 acres agement activity has increased sub- prescribed fire unit within the (102 ha). Increasing these unit stantially. Forest Service was about 450 acres sizes and using roads, natural bar- All Forest Service regions now have strategies designed to reduce wildfire hazard primarily through We believe we can increase accomplishment the application of prescribed fire. through escalating both the average size of Several regions have also devel- prescribed burn units and the amount of oped aggressive wildland fire use wildland fire use. programs which have contributed substantially to the overall Forest Service goals of reducing risk of wildfire and restoring fire-adapted Forest Service Hazard Fuel Treatments ecosystems (see table). Hazard Fuel Reduction Accomplishments The Forest Service intends to continue increasing hazard fuel reduction accomplishments. While we Acres do not expect large increases in funding, we believe we can increase accomplishment through escalating both the average size of prescribed

Tim Sexton, coordinator for this special Years “fire use” issue of Fire Management Today, is the fire use program manager for the WUI Rx Fire Non WUI Rx Fire WFU USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management, Washington Office, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. Fire use activity in the USDA Forest Service for fiscal years 2002-2005.

Fire Management Today 38 Wildland/Urban Interface—The Finley Butte Prescribed Fire is implemented on the Methow Valley Ranger District, Okanogan–Wenatchee National Forest to reduce excess fuels and help protect nearby communities from the threat of wildfire. Photo: Tom Iraci, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Office, Portland, OR, 2002. riers, and fuel type changes as unit boundaries will result in: Many forests have developed strategies that utilize a sequence of treatments to reduce risk and to • Lower unit costs, • Reduced risk of fire escape, and better position their future program goals. • Greater overall program accomplishment. treatments in the wildland/urban The Forest Service is committed Many forests have developed strate- interface, then utilizing prescribed to reducing wildfire risk to com- gies that utilize a sequence of treat- fire adjacent to those treatments, munities and restoring fire-adapted ments to reduce risk and to better can significantly reduce costs and ecosystems. Fire use has been—and position their future program increase the opportunities for suc- will continue to be—the most effec- goals. By first applying mechanical cessful prescribed fire and wildland tive tool for accomplishing these fire use. goals. 

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 39 Common Denominators in High-Performance Prescribed Fire Programs Tim Sexton

his January, USDA Forest Service regional fuels managers T were asked to identify the top- performing forest- or district-level prescribed fire programs within their regions. In March, line officer and fire manager representatives for these high-performance programs participated in a week-long workshop targeted to identify the common traits of these programs. The overall intent was to determine how these units achieve their high levels of success.

Workshop participants identified five significant factors that they agreed were most common for contributing high performance to their A prescribed fire on the Deschutes National Forest reduces hazard fuels in fire-prone prescribed fire programs: terrain near the 3,800 homes and condominiums in Sunriver, OR. Photo: Tom Iraci, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Office, Portland, OR, 2004. • Active line officer involvement and leadership, Line officer support and active involvement • Prioritization of efforts toward improving and maintaining part- was identified as the most important common nerships and collaboration, denominator of the high-performance prescribed • Excellent internal and external fire programs. communication, • Well-informed risk management, and provides examples and explanations most important common denomi- • Support for innovative implemen- of how these factors enable high nator of the high-performance pre- tation. performance in prescribed fire pro- scribed fire programs. grams. Many other factors that contributed From priority setting to ensur- to specific program success were Active Line Officer ing interdisciplinary involvement, also discussed and reviewed. This Involvement and line officers—more than any other article focuses on the most univer- Leadership factor—have the opportunity to sal of these factors. In doing so, it directly affect program achieve- Forest supervisors and district ments. Tim Sexton, coordinator for this special rangers exert great influence over “fire use” issue of Fire Management Today, on-the-ground implementation of Forest supervisors and district is the fire use program manager for the most Forest Service program areas. USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation rangers can elevate the prescribed Line officer support and active Management, Washington Office, National fire program from specific fire man- Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. involvement was identified as the

Fire Management Today 40 agement objectives to overall for- informal agreements between units National Forest developed clear est or district objectives. This can that have different prescribed fire forest-specific guidance for imple- be accomplished through specific windows to share employees when menting the Healthy Forest direction to all staff and adding pre- seasonal need is greatest. Initiative. This resulted in more scribed fire accomplishment to staff efficient and consistent planning performance elements. Southeast forests obtain personnel and implementation through com- from Rocky Mountain and Pacific mon understanding of the guidance Interdisciplinary support has been Northwest national forests during by all staff areas. generated through encouragement, January and February and, in turn, performance ratings, prioritization provide personnel to the Rocky Partnerships of discretionary funding, and com- Mountain Region during April and Leveraging Funding mitment of staff time to accomplish May. There are often multiple benefits prescribed fire objectives. When all from prescribed fire. Fostering resource disciplines are involved partnerships with specific interests in planning, implementation, and This personnel can bring outside funding for pre- monitoring at the program and interchange between scribed fire projects that have iden- project level, greater accomplish- units not only helps tified these benefits in the planning ment occurs. phase. accomplish agency Holding Forest Supervisors targets, but it enhances These outside interest groups Accountable include: Sharing responsibility for target the skills of these • The Rocky Mountain Elk attainment among functional staff people who participate Foundation and the Foundation within a unit, and among line offi- in this prescribed fire for North American Wild Sheep cers between units, increases the sharing. in the Pacific Northwest, availability of personnel and fund- • The Wild Turkey Federation ing to accomplish prescribed fire in the Southern and Eastern projects. Within regions, as the burn season Regions, progresses, sharing also transpires • Firesafe Councils in California, For example, regional foresters between forests. Forests within • Firewise Programs in the Forest in the Forest Service Northern prescription obtain resources from Service Eastern Region; and Rockies and Southwest Regions other forests that are too wet or too • State Habitat Partnership have held all forest supervisors dry to burn. They then reciprocate Programs in Wyoming and accountable for the regional hazard when those forests can burn. Colorado. fuel target. This has made it much easier for local units to obtain out- For example, the Northern Region Because the scale of our work is side help on prescribed fire proj- facilitates sharing among forests. often much greater than our avail- ects. The Bridger–Teton National Forest able program funding, bringing shares among local agencies to partners’ funds into the mix allows To effectively accomplish program take advantage of prescription for more acres to be treated. When goals, line officers must ensure that windows. Such interchanges not multiple interests and disciplines the correct skill levels are available. only help accomplish targets, but can claim the accomplishment, Developing the appropriate skills also enhance the personnel skills of there is also a greater incentive to among forest personnel has been those who participate in this pre- treat even more acres. accomplished through ensuring scribed fire sharing. training is available and by allowing Broad-Based Support employees to serve as trainees and Line officer effectiveness is evident Developing partnerships with coop- maintain currency (in many cases, when forest and district staffs have erators and these diverse interests utilizing off-unit assignments). clear direction and parameters for broadens the base of support to the implementing both regional and prescribed fire program. A clearer Sharing Employees national hazard fuel strategies. For understanding of the reasons for Successful prescribed fire programs instance, the Wallowa–Whitman burning builds overall support and have also developed formal and

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 41 tends to minimize vocal opposition • Clearwater and Nez Perce tion and planning of prescribed within communities and interest National Forests’ telephone con- fire treatments, resulting in groups. ference calls with partners and air broad-based support for that pro- quality regulators; gram; For example, working closely with • Sequoia National Forest remote • The Clearwater Elk Initiative State air regulators when planning smoke monitoring cameras are sponsored by U.S. Senator Mike and implementing prescribed fire facilitating better understanding Crapo provides significant sup- and wildland fire use (WFU) proj- with the San Joaquin Air Quality port for prescribed burning in ects improves the accurate assess- Board; northern and central Idaho; and ment of smoke impacts—and, thus, • Arizona fire zones have imple- • The Northeast Oregon Smoke allows more opportunities to use mented a collaborative fuels Management Memorandum fire. group that prioritizes and coor- of Understanding allowed the dinates all prescribed burning Wallowa–Whitman National Turning this relationship from across units within the zones; Forest to increase prescribed adversarial to cooperative has • The Front Range Fuels Treatment burning for forest health while proven to be beneficial—through Partnership in Colorado brings meeting State air quality require- fewer citations and more burning a diverse group of stakeholders ments. windows—in every Forest Service together to facilitate prioritiza- region:

Workshop Participants and Accomplishments

The National Fuels Management being managed—in addition to sev- The Coconino National Forest has Workshop was conducted by eral project fires and multiple type focused its prescribed fire program Tim Sexton, fire use program 3 wildfires. on the wildland/urban interface, manager; and Sarah Robertson, emphasizing collaboration to over- fire management specialist, Rocky Mountain Region come historic barriers and allowing for the USDA Forest Service, Pat Medina, assistant fire manage- prescribed fire in urban interface Fire and Aviation Management, ment officer, Gunnison Ranger settings. Flexibility and innovation Washington Office, National District, Gunnison National Forest have broadened windows of oppor- Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. tunity on this forest, resulting in The Gunnison Ranger District has higher levels of attainment in the Workshop participants included: been very consistent over the last non-wildland/urban interface. several years at accomplishing its Northern Region burn targets. In recent years, it Intermountain Region Joe Hudson, district ranger, Moose has hosted many trainees from the Rod Dykehouse, fire staff officer, Creek Ranger District, Nez Perce National Interagency Prescribed Bridger–Teton National Forest National Forest Fire Training Center and other Bob Lippincott, assisant fire staff, units. The district has also under- The Bridger–Teton National Forest Clearwater–Nez Perce National taken some of the most complex, and Grand Teton National Park pro- Forests high-risk stand-replacement pre- vide a great example of interagency scribed fire treatments—without partnering to achieve common The Nez Perce and Clearwater mishap. objectives in fire use and safe, effec- National Forests are implement- tive wildfire management. Their ing the full range of fire manage- Southwest Region long-established, mutual prescribed ment during fire season. Last Bruce Greco, fire staff officer, fire program affords a solid founda- August, 12,000 acres (4,013 ha) Coconino National Forest tion for meeting multiple objec- were burned under prescribed Jeff Thumm, fuels specialist, tives, including hazard fuel and fire while 24,000 acres (8,027 ha) Mogollon Rim Ranger District, wildlife habitat program goals. of wildland fire use (WFU) were Coconino National Forest

Fire Management Today 42 Long-Term Support When multiple interests gathered wildlife biologists from a Partners recognize that manag- and disciplines variety of Federal, State, and local ing fuels at the landscape scale is agencies to provide scientific sup- a long-term effort that will require can claim the port for using fire to enhance win- the careful attention and commit- accomplishment, there ter range big game habitat. This, ment of resources for decades. This is a greater incentive to in turn, is promoting program ongoing support—as more support- treat more acres. efficiencies through the sharing ers see how individual projects fit and funding of resources that can into the big picture—should reduce achieve various program goals. barriers to future project planning. ects continues to pave the way for In addition, the Grand Teton future use of management ignitions National Park and the Bridger– The support of Wilderness Watch in the Eagle Cap and other wilder- Teton National Forest are working for the Minam Backbone and ness areas. Minam II Management Ignited together to achieve prescribed fire objectives by prioritizing treat- Fire project in Oregon’s Eagle Cap Likewise, on the Bridger–Teton ments and utilizing interagency Wilderness is an example of this National Forest, the Jackson crews for fuels treatments, fire phenomenon. Since 1995, success- Interagency Habitat Initiative has ful implementation of these proj-

Pacific Southwest through unplanned ignitions on the prescribed fire program. Line Region more than 35,000 acres (11,706 and staff are actively involved—to ha). This was a record-setting year the extent that even district rang- Art Gaffrey, forest supervisor, for both the forest and the region. ers are often part of the burn Sequoia National Forest The Wallowa–Whitman National crew. Brent Skaggs, fire staff officer, Forest maintains a strong integra- Sequoia National Forest tion of funding and mission for Northeast Region timber, silviculture, and fuels. It Derrick Wilkerson, assistant Pacific Northwest has great contingency planning Region fire management officer, Wayne to accomplish hazard fuel targets National Forest Ken Rockwell, fuels and air qual- under dynamic conditions. ity manager, Wallowa–Whitman The Wayne National Forest fire/ National Forest Southern Region fuels program is a recent addi- Nick Lunde, Wallowa zone fire James Hart, fire staff officer, tion to the forest. Yet, despite its management officer National Forests of Florida recent development, the Wayne Fuels Program has aggressively Successful implementation of The National Forests of Florida has applied fire to the wildland/urban the Wallowa–Whitman National been very successful in developing interface—where approximately Forest’s hazard fuel reduction pro- and maintaining a wide diversity 90 percent of its burning occurs. gram consistently averages more of partnerships with other agen- than 125 percent of target. This cies, environmental groups, and The Wayne Fire and Fuels forest has strategically applied pre- various interest groups. It has been Program has also led the develop- scribed fire to enhance WFU oppor- a consistently high performer in ment of the Firewise Program in tunities, using these opportunities achieving targets in a cost-effective Ohio, helping develop partner- to implement even more fire onto manner. This forest has also been ships with State and local agen- the landscape. a proven leader in ensuring that cies, as well as nongovernmental all disciplines actively participate organizations and universities. In 2005, the Granite WFU Fire in planning and implementation of accomplished resource benefits

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 43 effects monitoring, and prescribed and distributing information to Regulatory Agencies fire and suppression resources. stakeholders and the public; It is also essential to create rela- • The Northern Arizona Ponderosa tionships with the regulatory agen- This approach is providing Fire Advisory Council conducts cies. Involving these agencies in increased acres treated for each education outreach to inform the the planning and project design agency. Additionally, these partner- public and targeted stakehold- helps to foster an understanding of ship programs are more effective ers on the benefits and need for prescribed fire issues and how to when the interagency managers use prescribed fire (the council has proactively solve them. This col- a unified approach to foster better also put together fuels crews for laboration also leads to increased understanding of issues, resulting use by all agencies in northern opportunities to apply prescribed in increased support and shared Arizona when conducting pre- fire to the landscape. accountability. scribed burns); and • Prescribed Fire Councils in Fostering regulatory agency rela- Communication and Florida are promoting the accep- tionships requires a strong com- Collaboration with tance of prescribed burning with mitment from fire managers, Publics, Internal legislators, stakeholders, and the line officers, and other resource Customers, and public. specialists. The resultant benefits Regulatory Agencies greatly increase prescribed fire program support and involvement. Effective communications is an Furthermore, these regulatory essential component of all pre- Regulatory agency agency partnerships allow line offi- scribed fire programs. When involv- partnerships allow cers to feel more comfortable with ing the public in the forest’s goals line officers to feel addressing and accepting risk. Such and objectives, we need to actively more comfortable efforts are currently occurring on encourage participation—where many units. They have accom- allowed—in collaborative plan- with addressing and plished many successes. ning and information sharing that accepting risk. provides a shared understanding of An example is the Clearwater and the issues and how we manage and Nez Perce National Forests gaining mitigate risk in the prescribed fire Education Efforts public and partnership support in programs. To provide our external and inter- implementing a 12,000-acre (4,013- nal publics with an understanding ha) prescribed fire while simultane- This includes forming inte- and knowledge of prescribed fire ously managing WFU and wildfire grated partnership groups (such program issues and results, it is suppression incidents during the as the Greater Flagstaff Forest also advantageous to create a pre- same time period. Partnership) to actively provide scribed fire education–information input and ideas into the manage- program that is integrated with Our efforts to establish productive ment of the prescribed fire pro- fire suppression and other resource communication and collaboration gram: programs. with the public, regulatory agencies, and other land and fire man- • The Greater Okefenokee As fire program strategies are agement agencies will result in: Association of Landowners implemented, it is also important and the Teton Area Wildfire to communicate successful burning • Beneficial partnerships, Protection Coalition both pro- program results (such as through • Better shared support in accept- vide public service messages that news releases and news briefings) ing risk, and advocate for prescribed fire and to internal and external interests • Increased prescribed fire program educate the public about wildfire; and to reward the success by pro- opportunities and capabilities. • County mitigation plan com- gram managers. Such efforts sup- mittees in northern Idaho are port the communication–collabora- facilitating agreement on issues tion process with both the public and regulatory agencies.

Fire Management Today 44 Risk Management The broader our prescribed fire program support How Does Good Risk base, the greater our support will be when that Management Get the Job Done? rare bad outcome event occurs. 1. Experience and skills. A workforce that has experience enables the decisionmaker to achieve educate and communicate the If risk at all levels of program a higher risk threshold. How? agency’s internal and external implementation is not managed Maintain and diversify current messages. appropriately, program success will workforce experience and skill be marginal. Managing risks (such level through intensive perfor- Increasing Risk Tolerance as program acceptance, smoke mance-based training. Plan proj- The greater the support and under- management, potential of escape, ects that challenge employees standing from diverse groups, the burn effects, and resource impacts and require training opportuni- greater the understanding of risks and benefits) without active line ties in a variety of prescribed fire and consequences. When a negative officer leadership will provide positions as well as vegetation prescribed fire program outcome marginal results. We must always types. Train prescribed burn occurs, this support can help lessen ensure that risk acceptance is based bosses to allow multiple igni- the political consequences and on sound decision support. tions during limited burn win- unwanted impacts on the entire dows. The National Interagency program. Implementation Prescribed Fire Training Center Characteristics An example of this support is a exchanges personnel nationally What are the project implementa- group of outfitters in Idaho who to better take advantage of pre- tion characteristics at the top-per- understand the wildlife benefits of scribed fire windows. forming fuel reduction programs? 2. Support from stakeholders, prescribed fire and fire use. Such support has permitted prescribed politicians, and collaborators. • Program managers take advan- burning for more days within the This support allows the deci- tage of all burning opportunities burn season and reduced the bar- sionmaker to achieve a higher that are presented throughout riers to decisionmakers for making risk threshold through shared the year—including night burn- the “Go” fire use event decisions. ownership, active participation, ing. For example, they have funding, and involvement in more acres available to burn Accountability will always go hand- implementation. How? Describe than simply their target acres. in-hand with this support. Using what is in it for “them.” Convey Then, as burning opportunities fire to manage landscapes is not your mission and leader’s intent, arise, they can pursue multiple a perfect science. Even a seem- defining their role in the pro- directions (various elevations ingly flawless burn plan will always cess. (Example: Local stake- and aspects). encompass an element of risk. holder California Department of • Flexibility is built into the pre- Therefore, the broader our pre- Forestry’s chief officers meeting scribed fire program. Plans are scribed fire program support base, with Forest Service prior to based on the expectation that not the greater our support will be implementation of wildland/ all program elements will occur when the rare bad outcome event urban interface hazard fuels as anticipated. For example, occurs. reduction projects.) while a forest might not receive 3. Publicize Success, Education an appropriate spring burn win- Contingency plans also need to and Communication. A success- dow, it nonetheless has plans be fully designed and developed. ful program that incorporates in place to accomplish the fuels They must consider likely alternate these attributes allows the deci- target through contract obliga- scenarios and utilize all the tools sionmaker to achieve a higher tion (identified on the advanced available for safely and effectively risk threshold by reducing resis- acquisition plan) or by switch- achieving treatment objectives. tance and encouraging the solici- ing to mechanical treatment. This enables the work—despite tation of by-in. How? Deliver the Thus, units suitable for contract changing conditions—to be accom- right message, using multimedia implementation are identified in coupled with opportunities to plished efficiently and successfully.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 45 advance. Liability associated with • Prescribed burning is applied ments, such as in wildland/urban the contract is managed. to larger units designed with interface areas, and protects • Project implementation is sufficient pre-burn treatment/ investments. Maintenance treat- integrated among everyone preparation and with variable ments in strategically placed involved in project analysis and outcomes that are anticipated units—located within high-pri- development. For example, the consistent with the variability ority areas—take precedence Apalachicola National Forest has of landscape conditions. This over entering new areas during wildlife biologists, silviculturists, improves cost/treatment effec- times of flat or decreasing bud- and archeologists serving on its tiveness and implementation gets. burning crews. This provides efficiency. In many situations, it • Distribution of funding between for more project ownership as is no more expensive to hold the the time of analysis and imple- well as for better understanding perimeter of a 2,000-acre (669 mentation is balanced to maxi- of treatment effectiveness and ha) burn unit than a 200-acre mize accomplishment on the mitigation measures. In addition, (67 ha) unit. ground. Therefore, no more the integration of implementa- • Maintenance burning is an funding than necessary is tion funding sources allows for a increasingly important part directed to analysis to maintain more focused approach to meet of the overall fuels reduction an adequate implementation agency goals and to accomplish program in the West. It is the pipeline or, alternatively, a mini- multiple objectives. norm in the East. Maintenance mum-sized analysis workforce.  burning improves previous treat-

Websites on Fire* National Staff Ride the northeast. This is the sixth myriad of information on staff Library Website Santa Ana wind event this fall. You rides, from background material have just received a dispatch for a and information sources for build- You are the superintendent of a fire in the Angeles National Forest’s ing staff rides and these tactical southern California hotshot crew. front country near Pacoima decision games, to actual staff ride It is 0900 hours on November 1. Canyon. templates. It has been a long fire season. It began early—in late May—with What information and instructions The intent of this resource is to the 10,000-acre (4,047 ha) do you convey to your crew? provide a library of information Wellman Fire on the Los Padres on significant wildland fire events Nation Forest. Your crew has been That is the actual scenario for the to assist people who want to con- fighting fire nonstop ever since. tactical decision game for stand two duct staff rides to those sites. This in the 1966 fatality Loop Fire Staff Website also serves as a reference Fuel conditions are exceptionally Ride. This staff ride format, and source for those who want to dry. The past four days, a Santa several others, are available on the develop new staff rides for inci- Ana wind has been blowing from National Staff Ride Library Website. dents of local interest. * Occasionally, Fire Management Today briefly describes Websites brought to our attention by the wildland fire community. Readers should not con- Provided by the National Wildfire Found at . the managing editor, Paul Keller, at 503-622-4861, [email protected] (e-mail). this helpful Website provides a

Fire Management Today 46 Wildland Fire Use as a Prescribed Fire Primer Dana Cohen

here are several goals for prescribed fire programs, from Where the goal is restoration of process and T intensive fuel reduction inside ecosystem health, we need to ask: Are these the wildland/urban interface for reducing the risk of severe fire near prescribed fires truly replicating “natural” fire? homes, to restoring the natural role of fire to the landscape out where tolerate the smoke of a long-term a century of fire suppression has The Nature of Fire planned ignition event? Will we left an unintentional—yet indel- When we talk about the role of fire have resources to manage this ible—impact. in ecosystems, the term “mosaic” fire in another week? In another is often used. As managers move month? With such a variety of goals, howev- toward larger treatment units, er, we tend to apply fire at the same more of a mosaic is inevitable— times of year with the same tools, regardless of ignition source, tim- Applying Fire in a and often with the sole objective of ing, or length of the burn. Restorative Mode reducing wildland fuels to very low And yet the reality is that fires levels. For units where the goal is The mosaic achieved in a WFU fire, allowed to move with little or no not a “natural” setting but rather however, is rarely replicated in a management intervention create a defensible space, this type of fire prescribed burn. There are many a much greater mosaic as they is often exactly what’s needed. But reasons for this, all of which can be progress. Fires are patient—they where the goal is restoration of pro- gleaned from observing “natural” smolder, creep, or merely persist cess and ecosystem health, we need fires. through heavy fuels as fuel condi- to ask: Are these prescribed fires tions, weather, and topography truly replicating “natural” fire? After nearly a decade of observing allow for a period of fire growth. lightning-caused, unsuppressed As wildland fire use (WFU) becomes fires in Yellowstone National Park, If we, as managers, could be so more common outside of wilder- Don Despain, research ecologist at patient in our application of fire, ness areas and moves onto a greater the Department of the Interior, U.S. we would be taking great strides variety of Federal, State, and private Geological Survey, Northern Rocky toward truly applying fire in a lands, we have the opportunity to Mountain Science Center, made the restorative mode. observe more fire use events. Thus, following key observations (Despain we have the ability—if we’re pay- 1985): Research ecologist Despain further ing attention—to better calibrate noted that less than 20 percent of our prescribed fire prescriptions • Large fires do not result from the lightning starts in old-growth for restoration purposes and add an every ignition; stands in Yellowstone National important set of tools to our arse- • Fires can persist for long periods Park grew to greater than 5 acres nal. of time; and (2 ha). It is also a fact that in land- • Fires are not active through most scapes so far from their “natural” of their duration—large acreage compositions, minimally managed increases are only sporadic. fires alone will not restore ecosys- Dana Cohen is a fire prevention officer for tems (Miller 2004). There is no one the USDA Forest Service, North Kaibab Perhaps the greatest missing link answer, no one magic bullet. Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Fredonia, AZ. When she wrote this article in our attempts to “restore” natural in April 2006, she was a fuels specialist for fire to the landscape is our typical There is always the opportunity the USDA Forest Service’s Dixie National human impatience—grounded in for us to learn and to grow, the Forest, Cedar City, UT. political realities. Would the public opportunity to add more tools to

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 47 our arsenal. The three adjacent case Does it really matter who starts the Acknowledgments studies are excellent examples of fire? Kim Soper, Mike Crawley, Diane Cote, Bob this (see sidebar). As we continue Dellinger, Rhonda Watson, Mark Taylor, to shift from a suppression para- Ultimately it doesn’t. But the tim- Leon Konz, Susan Ross, Beth Buchanan, Garner Harris, Mark Rogers, Mike digm to one of integrated landscape ing and type of fire do matter. Frary, Mark Rosenthal, the fire manage- management, WFU fires offer an Taking the lessons learned from ment staff of the Northwest Colorado undeniable opportunity to add to WFUs and integrating them into Fire Management Unit, Deb Yoder, Tod Johnson, Cyndi Sidles, Nate Benson, Tim our management toolbox. our prescribed fire management Sexton, Henry Bastian, Jake Schoppe, practices are the next step in the Brian Steinhardt, and Mike Welch. evolution of fire management.

The Next Step in Our Evolution of Fire Management: Three Case Studies

Right Fork Wildland • Create a better mosaic of age their prescribed burn attempts for Fire Use Fire/Texas classes and species diversity with- several reasons, including inability Mountain Prescribed in the shrub/forb community. to meet prescription and staff turn- Fire over. When the fire was first reported, Northwest Colorado Fire Management Unit, the Zone Fire Management Officer The Six Mile WFU Fire started in Department of the and others recognized the location July 2004 near this original pre- Interior, Bureau of Land and proceeded to manage the fire scribed fire unit. The fire was called Management, White River for resource benefit. After several out in November. Ultimately, this Field Office days of observing the fire’s behav- WFU accounted for 5,027 acres ior, it was clear that the conditions (2,034 ha) burned, with the major- On August 21, 2003, a lightning were optimal for conducting the ity of fire growth occurring in strike started a wildland fire use prescribed burn. Resources were September. Portions of the 2000 (WFU) fire in the Texas Mountain gathered; fire restrictions were prescribed fire treatment were prescribed burn unit near reexamined. On September 1, the reburned. Rangely, CO. The Texas Mountain prescribed burn was successfully prescribed burn had been planned initiated while the WFU continued Managers and the forest fire ecolo- 10 years earlier. The burn had within its boundaries until it was gist were impressed with the WFU’s been attempted several times prior completely absorbed into the pre- fire behavior, even during the mon- to this lightning ignition. That scribed fire burn. soonal weather patterns of midsum- coming October, a prescribed burn mer and occasional rainfall that the was slated for yet another try. Six Mile Wildland Fire unit received. The fire burned in Use Fire a mosaic, consuming heavy fuels The goals of this planned pre- Manti-LaSal National Forest and creating numerous gaps in the scribed burn were to: fir that had encroached into aspen In the late 1990s, a project was habitat. • Reduce heavy fuel remnants developed on the Manti-LaSal from “chainings,” a method for National Forest in eastern Utah Because it was previously thought felling large numbers of piñyon to promote aspen regeneration that fire during this time of year and juniper trees using a large through the reintroduction of fire. wouldn’t achieve management anchor chain pulled between In 2000, fire was applied to a por- objectives, burning at this time was two tractors, in the 1960s and tion of the target unit. Plans were not originally considered. However, 1970s; in place to treat additional acre- as the fire effects—during both • Reduce the piñyon pine and age following the 2004 fire season. the fire’s slow growth as well as its juniper encroachment into the Managers had been constrained in runs—continued to be monitored, area; and

Fire Management Today 48 management for sustainability: Principles Harmon, M. 1982. Fire history of the References and practices. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: westernmost portion of Great Smoky Arno, S.F.; Fiedler, C.E. 2005. Mimicking 329–347. Mountains National Park. Bulletin of the nature’s fire: Restoring fire-prone forests Despain, D.G. 1985. Ecological implications Torrey Botanical Club. 109: 74–79. in the West. New York: Island Press. of ignition sources in park and wilder- Miller, C.; Parsons, D. 2004. Can wildland Bonnicksen, T.M. 2000. America’s ancient ness fire management programs. In: fire use restore natural fire regimes in forests: From the Ice Age to the age of Wilderness fire symposium, Gen. Tech. wilderness and other unroaded lands? discovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rep. INT-182. Logan, UT: USDA Forest Final report to the Joint Fire Science Buckner, E.; Turrill, N. L. 1999. Fire and Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Program, Project 01-1-1-05. Aldo Leopold southern Appalachian ecosystem man- Experiment Station. Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, agement. In: J. Peine, ed. Ecosystem MT. 

From 1942 to 1997, of the 115 recorded suppressed lightning fires, the largest acreage burned in the park from a single fire was the 1988 163-acre (66-ha) Redman Fire. Only 21 fires (18 percent) during this time period grew to more than 10 acres (4 ha). In fact, the Redman Fire was the only suppressed fire that grew to more than 100 acres (40 ha) within the park.

Since 1998, 14 lightning started fires have been recorded in the park. The majority of these were not suppressed. Four grew to Varied Consumption—The Six Mile Wildland Fire Use Fire on the Manti-LaSal National more than 100 acres (40 ha). Of Forest burned through the monsoonal weather patterns of midsummer in a mosaic pat- these, the Chilly Springs Fire is tern, successfully consuming heavy fuels and creating numerous gaps in the fir that had the largest, currently at 900 acres encroached into aspen habitat. Photo: Dana Cohen, USDA Forest Service, North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Fredonia, AZ, 2004. (360 hectares). None of these large WFU fires experienced any managers gained valuable informa- Harmon’s studies in the park would management intervention, such as tion for future aspen restoration seem to confirm this (Harmon burnout operations, which might projects. 1981). They attribute the major- skew the data. ity of known fire starts and burned Great Smoky Mountains acreages to anthropogenic causes Recent experience suggests that National Park Fire Use rather than to lightning. lightning has played a greater role Program in the landscape than previously Since the implementation of a understood. It has also helped The prevailing paradigm for fire- WFU policy with the park’s 1996 park fire staff approach their pre- dependent communities in the fire management plan, however, scribed burns differently. Main southern Appalachians is that they managers have been exposed to a ignition often occurs along ridge- are largely a result of anthropogen- number of lightning-caused fires lines, and fire is allowed to back ic, or human, influences (Buckner that are beginning to tell a vastly down toward blackened control 1998). Fire histories, such as Mark different story. lines or moist drainages.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 49 Learning From Escaped Prescribed Fires – Lessons for High Reliability Deirdre Dether and Anne Black

eeting national goals for sidebar). Our intent is to identify hazardous fuels reduction Our intent is to identify potential “weak signals” or “early M and ecosystem restoration potential “weak signals” warning signs” that fire use practi- would be difficult—if not impos- tioners might want to heed as they sible—without utilizing prescribed or “early warning prepare for future fire use as well as fire. Suspension of prescribed fire signs” that fire use suppression events. programs, as often happens follow- practitioners might want ing an escape, limits Federal capac- to heed as they prepare Getting a Leg Up ity to meet programmatic, social, On Reliability and ecological goals. for future fire use and suppression events. Unexpected events surprise us. Managing for the unexpected Thus, meeting these goals requires implies a consciously nurtured and that fire programs—both pre- honed ability to attend to small scribed fire and wildland fire use fair share of accidents (Weick and surprises—to recognize, early, that (WFU)—operate with “high reliabil- Sutcliffe 2001). events are not proceeding accord- ity.” In other words, they go about ing to plan. And then respond deci- their work with less than their In this article, to understand how sively. to improve future performance, we Deirdre Dether is the forest fuels plan- summarize a recent review (Dether Yet, as authors Karl Weick and ner for the USDA Forest Service, Boise 2005) of escaped prescribed fires National Forest, Boise, ID; Anne Black Kathleen Sutcliffe explain, the is an ecologist with the Aldo Leopold from the perspective of high reli- human tendency is to “search for Wilderness Research Institute, USDA Forest ability (see “The Five Key High confirming evidence which post- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reliability Organization Activities” Missoula, MT. pones the realization that some-

The Five Key High Reliability Organization Activities

Through their research into the These five activities can be grouped • A constant vigilance to opera- successful operations of orga- into two functional categories, tions and updating our under- nizations involved in high risk “mindful anticipation,” and “mind- standing of events based on operations—including nuclear ful containment.” our observations (Sensitivity to aircraft carriers, air traffic control, Operations). emergency rooms, and fire opera- Mindful anticipation includes tions—Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) actions that focus on: Mindful containment includes: have identified five activities in which all successful high reliabil- • Identifying and responding quick- • Decisive response and adap- ity organizations engage to man- ly to conditions that can lead tation to unexpected devel- age unexpected events: to failure (Preoccupation with opments (Commitment to Failure), Resiliency), and 1. Preoccupation with Failure, • Seeking and maintaining a diver- • A deference to those with great- 2. Reluctance to Simplify, sity and complexity of perspec- est expertise and firsthand 3. Sensitivity to Operations, tives (Reluctance to Simplify), knowledge of the developing 4. Commitment to Resiliency, and and events (Deference to Expertise). 5. Deference to Expertise.

Fire Management Today 50 Constantly Looking for Ways To Improve Program

Tim Sexton

During the past few years, the USDA Forest Service’s prescribed While the agency’s prescribed fire program has fire program has demonstrated a high rate of success, we are constantly looking a record of success and improve- ment. Analyses completed in 2002 for ways to improve. and 2006 demonstrated a high rate of success and an improving USDA Forest Service prescribed fire escapes and success rates. trend (see table). 1996-2001 2003 -2005 Most of the 38 escapes during this Prescribed Fires 24,133 10,920 3-year study were not significant Annual Average 4,022 3,640 in that they did not burn private Acres Burned 6,406,217 4,928,766 lands, did not significantly damage natural resources, nor cause Annual Average 1,067,703 1,642,922 large, costly suppression actions. Escapes 235 38 Annual Average 39.2 12.7 While the agency’s prescribed fire Average Success Rate 99.0% 99.7% program has a high rate of success, we are constantly looking for ways to improve. Deirdre Dether Lessons for High Reliability” in this Interior) and identified areas and Anne Black’s article “Learning issue of Fire Management Today where application of HRO con- From Escaped Prescribed Fires – suggests that we can increase our cepts might have resulted in a prescribed fire program success more favorable outcome. rate through instilling high reli- Tim Sexton, coordinator for this special ability organization (HRO) concepts It is important to remember that “fire use” issue of Fire Management more fully. the examples of prescribed fire Today, is the fire use program manager escapes cited in the article rep- for the USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management, Washington Office, The authors have reviewed many resent a very small fraction of National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, escapes (USDA Forest Service as the number of prescribed burns ID. well as U.S. Department of the implemented by these agencies.

thing unexpected is developing. If you are slow to realize that things If we can train ourselves to notice and respond to are not the way you expected them surprises early—while they are still small—we will to be, the problem worsens and becomes harder to solve. When have a leg up on reliability. it finally becomes clear that your expectation is wrong, there might be few options left to resolve the Using the Concept 1. An event for which you had no problem” (Weick and Sutcliffe of Surprise expectation, no prior model of the event, no hint that it was 2001:39). Weick and Sutcliffe use the con- coming; cept of surprise to help develop 2. A recognized issue, but one that If we can train ourselves to notice an understanding of unexpected moves in the wrong direction; and respond to surprises early— events. Surprises come in a number 3. An event you know will happen, while they are still small—we will of varieties (Kylen 1985): have a leg up on reliability. when it will happen, and in what

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 51 order, but you discover that the It is our hope and intent that this summary timing is off; helps increase our individual and organizational 4. An event for which the expected duration of the event proves to capacity to mindfully anticipate and respond to the be wrong; and inevitable unexpected occurrences. 5. An expected event, but of the wrong amplitude (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001:36-39). The 30 prescribed fire escape • Pinyon–juniper, reviews and near misses studied in • Chaparral, In our study, we examine previous this review were: • Sagebrush–aspen, escaped prescribed fires through • Oak brush, two lenses: • Obtained from the Wildland Fire • Grass, and Lessons Learned Center, Tucson, • Activity fuels (slash). 1. First, by considering the types of AZ, surprises noted in escape review • Collected from agency websites The number of acres planned for reports, by agency personnel, or ignition ranged from less than 5 2. Second, by fitting these identi- • Located in personal collections. acres (2 ha) to more than a 1,000 fied surprises into the five activi- acres (405 ha) for individual burn ties common to high reliable Although all accessible documents blocks, with several of the more organizations (HROs) (see side- were analyzed, this was by no recent escapes involving multiple bar). means a comprehensive sweep of burn blocks. escape reviews. Because some agen- Surprises can indicate where we cies do not systematically report Common Surprises have faulty assumptions and expec- escapes or near misses and there is During Implementation tations. By looking at multiple no central repository for this docu- The most common form of unfore- events across agencies and condi- mentation, this report represents a seen and unanticipated events and tions, we can identify the lessons “grab” sample. Even so, this effort outcomes noted in the reviews that we might be learning in our represents a significant step in were surprises due to unexpected individual units through direct helping to identify common threads amplitude of events (see “Varieties experience, yet not incorporating in lapses of mindfulness. of Surprise” sidebar), including into our broader, collective toolbox greater than expected fire behavior of organizational knowledge. Documents reviewed ran the gamut due to winds, fuel moistures, fuel from slide show presentations complexes, and unexpected com- It is our hope and intent that this to final reports. They occurred plexity. summary helps increase our indi- from 1996 to 2004 under signifi- vidual and organizational capacity cantly different policy, as well as One burn boss described unex- to mindfully anticipate and respond varied burning conditions—from pected fire behavior in standing to these inevitable and unexpected February to October. Reviews from dead piñyon–juniper. The bug- occurrences. all four Federal land management killed trees had no needles left in agencies (USDA Forest Service, their crowns, yet fire was able to The Prescribed Fire USDI Bureau of Land Management, move into the crowns and sustain Escape Review USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and fire spread through the aerial fuels The review, “Prescribed Fire USDI National Park Service) were much like a typical crown fire. In Lessons Learned: Escaped evaluated—covering landscapes this case, an adequate control line Prescribed Fire Reviews and Near from Alaska to Florida. stopped the spread of fire, prevent- Miss Incidents–Initial Impressions ing the prescribed fire to escape. Report” (Dether 2005), represents Reviewed prescribed fire vegeta- the first known attempt to use an tion–fuel complexes included: In another prescribed fire treat- HRO framework to evaluate and ment, unexpected heat and spotting synthesize causes and commonali- • Ponderosa pine, came from a small pocket of fuels ties in reviews of escaped prescribed • Mixed conifer, adjacent to the burn area bound- fires and near misses. • Subalpine fir, ary. This was not the dominant fuel

Fire Management Today 52 Although analysis of burn com- The lack of appropriate “mental Varieties of plexity changed considerably from models”—expectations and assump- Surprise 1996 to 2004, correct assessment tions—included weather, test firing, is still a critical step to success. control points, and expectations for 1. First Form. Something Underrating complexity led to inef- implementing a previously written appears for which you had no fective or underdesigned ignition, burn plan. In several cases, lack of expectation, no prior model of holding, and contingency plans. understanding of what constituted the event—no hint that it was Planners and implementers com- a logical or realistic control point coming. monly underrated both individual led to indefensible burn block 2. Second Form. The issue is and overall prescribed fire complex- boundaries. recognized, but the direction ity. of the expectation is wrong. In some cases, even though burn 3. Third Form. Occurs when In several cases, this was due to the personnel knew model predictions you know what will happen, burn plan preparer not following would not be accurate, the actual when it will happen, and in agency direction. This underrating rate of spread, flame lengths, and what order—but you discover also occurred when burns that were resultant spotting were still beyond that the timing is off. implemented simultaneously were their experience—and, often times, 4. Fourth Form. Occurs when rated separately. even their imaginations. the expected duration of the event proves to be wrong. Review teams often noted that the How Weather 5. Fifth Form. Occurs when the depth and detail of analysis for Contributed problem is expected, but the complex burns was insufficient. Weather was cited as the immediate amplitude is not. Large-scale burns will likely have causal factor of nearly 50 percent – Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) multiple aspects, variable vegeta- (14) of the escapes. This included Chapter 2, pages 36-39 tion–fuel complexes, and resource increased or shifting winds and objectives and constraints that—to drops in relative humidity that lead implement successfully—require to spotting beyond burn perim- type within the burn area. It had more complex planning and burn not been noted in the burn plan. eters. Weather conditions were organization. often cited as not being “normal” People on escapes were frequently or being “more than normal” (such Burn Boss as periods of drought and untypical surprised by fire behavior unexpect- Qualifications edly more intense than anticipated warmer and drier circumstances) in the burn plan. Placing test fires Almost invariably, these escape prior to ignition. On some burns, it in unrepresentative locations and reviews also noted surprises due was noted that these weather-relat- fuel types—such as in cooler or to events or conditions outside the ed conditions became progressively moister locations than characteris- experience of the people involved warmer and drier prior to escape. tic across the unit, or in fuels with in the burn. While people’s burn a less extreme fire behavior poten- qualifications was an issue in only Unexpected winds—in both tial than the main burn area—also two of the reviews studied, several strength and duration—were com- led to misconceptions of expected reviews noted that burn bosses— monly cited as contributing factors fire behavior. while technically qualified—were to escapes. Some burn personnel still inexperienced with the fuel reported being surprised by the Weakness in type. effect of strong, erratic winds on Burn Plans Reviewers noted common weaknesses in burn plans surrounding: This review represents the first known attempt to use a high reliability organizing framework to • Complexity and risk assessments, evaluate and synthesize causes and commonalities • Thoroughness of the ignition, in reviews of escaped prescribed fires and and near misses. • Holding and contingency plans.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 53 their fire that resulted from nearby personnel did not gather onsite Surprise, Mindfulness, thunderstorm development. In one information to confirm planned or and High Reliability case, the storm was forecast. The expected conditions. By considering these prescribed fire crew could see the thunder cells escapes through the lens of high developing. But because the storm Unforeseen Events reliability, we see undue confidence was approximately 30 miles (48 km) In several cases, unexpected fuels placed in burn plans as well as a away, they decided that it posed no or conditions, and thus fire behav- lack of testing, confirming, and threat and proceeded with ignition. ior, resulted from the unexpected updating of knowledge based on timing of events. When burn per- real-time, on-the-ground informa- Mop-up and Patrolling sonnel did not recognize these tion—also known as situational In most cases, burns were patrolled changes or update their expecta- awareness. on a daily basis. In burns of longer tions, they often received dire sur- duration, the patrols noted activ- prises. These are failures of “mindful ity—visible smoke or open flam- anticipation” (see “The Five Key ing of fuels—increasing inside the Several escapes noted that fine High Reliability Organization burn unit. On some escapes, while fuel loadings at the time of imple- Activities” sidebar). They tend to the patrols noted these “smokes,” mentation differed from burn plan group into lapses of “Preoccupation they—wrongly—thought they with Failure” and “Sensitivity would not threaten the burn’s to Operations.” Lapses in boundaries. On other burns, per- Planners and “Preoccupation with Failure” sonnel knew other prescribed burns implementers occurred in the planning stages had recently escaped within their commonly underrated (such as improper fuel models geographical area. Despite these used), as well as in implementation signals, they did not alter mop-up both individual and (such as test firing in nonrepresen- protocols or utilize heat-detecting overall prescribed fire tative fuel types). equipment. complexity. We also see signs of a lack of Another form of surprise occurred “Sensitivity to Operations” through when fuels, change of vegeta- expectations and fuel condition a reliance on information in the tion type, or nighttime humidity assumptions. In some cases, this burn plan without confirming recovery—despite the burn plan’s was due to seasonal variation, such that conditions at the time of igni- predicted fire behavior descrip- as a wetter-than-normal growing tion conform to those addressed tions—failed to check the spread season preceding implementation. in the burn plan. These lapses in of fire. On one burn, aspen stands In another prescribed fire escape, “Sensitivity to Operations” also that were intended to check the the “resting” of a pasture for 2 include failing to note small signals fire’s spread failed because the burn years prior to the burn implemen- that indicate prior experience or was not implemented during the tation increased fine fuel loads. planning might no longer match planned season when aspen could Unfortunately, this change of condi- actual conditions (such as changes reasonably be expected to function tion was not captured or discussed in fuel loads), and failures to cap- as a natural barrier. in the burn plan or was otherwise ture changes in significant fire noted prior to ignition. behavior parameters (such as fuel In another case, a wetland adjacent moisture recovery). to the burn area was identified as a Timing surprises often occurred at natural barrier. Yet when the burn the margins of prescription param- Next Steps to High was implemented, this preplanned eters when either the conditions Reliability Organizing natural barrier was dry. On several occurred sooner than expected, or In retrospect, while many of the of these prescribed burns, night- delays in implementation resulted time humidity recovery was expect- surprises can be viewed as failure in ignitions already being in prog- to follow policy, we feel confident ed to stop or check the spread of ress when conditions exceeded pre- fire, but failed. In these cases, burn that no one intentionally set out to scription parameters. violate policy. Good policy is essential and must be followed. While

Fire Management Today 54 improvements to policy give practi- This effort represents a significant step in tioners better “whats,” we also need helping to identify common threads in lapses of better “hows” and a deeper understanding of the “whys.” Following mindfulness. policy is critical. But it does not necessarily increase our ability to identify and respond to the numer- escape reviews that we examined • To help build more complete ous “weak signals” encountered in this study were not conducted mental models, ensure that mul- during fire operations. for the purpose of ascertaining tiple perspectives (from the pre- strengths and weaknesses in high scribed fire planner, burn boss, Building this capacity is key to reliability. Thus, we can only draw holding and ignition specialists) improving our performance as inferences from what is noted in are secured during burn plan individuals and as a HRO. This these reviews. development—then follow up by is achieved through both indi- seeking multiple perspectives at vidual and organizational actions. Further, because this sample might implementation. Individual and organizational not be representative, we must • Rather than considering—until capacity includes the individual treat the generalizability of our proven otherwise—that every- knowledge and experience neces- insights cautiously. For instance, thing is acceptable, we need to sary to successfully implement simply because 50 percent of this train ourselves to the opposite: policy, as well as the organizational sample noted weather as a factor, that our prior experiences are structures that support ongoing does not mean that, overall, 50 per- invaluable, not infallible. learning at both individual and cent of escapes involve unexpected • We need to treat our experi- organizational levels. weather events. ences and expectations as test- able hypotheses and look for Activities include tangibles such disconfirming evidence—then be as internal HRO “audits,” local Unexpected events prepared to quickly respond to and national training and mentor- will continue to the new information that these ing programs, and mechanisms occur. How do we questions reveal. for transferring and institutional- izing lessons learned—as well as organize ourselves to Conclusions the broader intangibles such as successfully recognize Unexpected events will continue becoming a “learning culture.” and respond to them? to occur. How do we organize our- Approaches such as the Forest selves to successfully recognize and Service’s new fire suppression doc- respond to them? trine* appear to address this less At the same time, we do know tangible aspect of capacity. that weather can be problematic. Are we anticipating correctly but We would be remiss if we didn’t not responding sufficiently? Or, Because the process of understand- conclude that we can improve our are we missing important signals? ing our weaknesses and strengths mindfulness in this area. Are these lapses idiosyncratic by is a key first step to improving reli- individual—or systemic across the ability, the rigorous evaluations of In summary, in planning and entire organization? existing practices and local efforts implementing prescribed fire to improve mindfulness can also events, we offer the following Applying frameworks such as high help build capacity for improving observations and insights for con- reliability systematically can help our performance. sideration: us better understand our strengths and weaknesses—both across the Important Disclaimer • Ensure that expectations of fire organization and individually. It is also important to remember behavior are built on conditions that the original prescribed fire existing at the time of ignition The weaknesses noted in our and for the duration of the burn, study are not new. While the vast * For more information on fire suppression doctrine, not simply at the time the burn majority of fire events (wildland see the Spring 2006 Fire Management Today issue on “Safety” (66(2). plan was written. fire use, prescribed fire, fire sup-

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 55 pression) conclude successfully, We need to learn from the experiences—both there are common threads in those positive and negative—of those who have been the prescribed fire events that do not. Although these are “initial impres- focus of these reviews. Their experiences are an sions,” we can still begin to take invaluable asset to the organization as a whole. action.

Individually, we can view plans and particularly Dave Thomas, regional and supplied additional escape expectations with skepticism and fuels specialist (now retired), for prescribed fire reviews not elec- seek disconfirming rather than promoting a learning organiza- tronically available. We would be confirming evidence. We can also tion and supporting and funding a remiss if we did not also publicly begin to use the frameworks of sur- detail program analyst (Dether) to extend our appreciation to and for prise and high reliability to assess the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned those individuals whose actions our individual and local actions. Center to develop the Initial have been the focus of review. Their Impressions Report; and to Brett experiences—both positive and Organizationally, we might want Fay, regional wildland fire use spe- negative—are an invaluable asset to to expand upon this effort to look cialist, for facilitating development the organization as a whole. comprehensively at escapes and of this article. The Boise National near misses and discuss additional Forest graciously allowed Dether References ways to build mindful anticipation time to work on these issues. Dether, D. 2005. Prescribed fire lessons and resiliency into our organiza- National Fire Plan funds support learned: escaped prescribed fire reviews tional structures and behavior. and near miss incidents–initial impres- Black’s work on high reliability and sions report. Working paper on file at Consistent development and central organizational effectiveness. Both Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center. collection and storage of escape authors have gained substantially Kylen, B.J. 1985. What business lead- and near miss reviews would surely from their interactions with both ers do—before they are surprised. In: Lamb, R; Shrivastava, P. (Eds). Advances assist such an effort. Doctors Karl Weick and Kathleen in Strategic Management, Vol. 3. Sutcliffe. Tim Sexton, national Greenwhich, CT.:JAI Press: 181–222. Acknowledgements fire use specialist for the Forest Weick, K.; Sutcliffe, K. 2001. Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance We would like to thank the Forest Service; and Al Carrier, national in an age of complexity. University of Service Intermountain Region fire fuels management specialist–opera- Michigan Business School Management and aviation management program, tions for the USDI Bureau of Land Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Management, dug into their files Publishers. 

What Was Your Biggest Surprise on a Prescribed Fire?

hat was your biggest sur- These questions, and others, are The production, available in 40- prise on a prescribed fire or posed to a panel of veteran burn and 20-minute versions, can be W wildland fire use fire? What bosses in the video/digital video acquired through the Wildland was your most stressful situation disc (DVD) production “Burn Boss Fire Lessons Learned Center, on a prescribed fire or wildland Stories: Learning From Veteran Tucson AZ. For more information, fire use fire? What was the most Prescribed Fire and Wildland Fire and to peruse the other available significant lesson you learned on a Use Practitioners.” Their answers wildland fire learning organiza- prescribed fire or wildland fire use prove informative and insightful. tion-themed video/DVD produc- fire? tions, access the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center Website at . 

Fire Management Today 56 Measuring Success in Your Fuels Program Paula Nasiatka and David Christenson

ildland fuels programs survey should find they are better measure their strengths and weak- around the country are prepared for program reviews. nesses. W faced with periodic review and evaluations. Unfortunately, The program reviewers who incor- During the summer of 2005, they often follow a “report card” porate these six critical tasks into approximately 200 interagency format rather than a true learning their reviews and then follow-up by wildland fire people took the draft practice method. sharing unit lessons and effective survey online. These members of practices, are helping to improve the wildland fire community com- Unit-level fuels program members the entire wildland fire organiza- pleted the survey as: who take the time to practice the tional learning environment. six critical tasks of a learning orga- • An individual working unit, nization (see sidebar) and periodi- Organizational • A wildland firefighting crew, or cally take the companion learning Learning Survey • As an incident management team member. The Lessons Learned Center coop- erated with Harvard Business Paula Nasiatka is the center manager, and The survey tool has three sections: School as it developed the first of Dave Christenson is the assistant center 1. Learning culture and environ- its kind organizational learning manager, of the Wildland Fire Lessons ment. This includes the inter- Center, Tucson, AZ. survey to help individuals and units

A Six-Step Tool To Improve How Your Unit Is Learning How can your unit learn from 1. Continually collect intelligence if a review is done during a both its everyday fuels program about the fuels environment. prescribed fire or wildland fire activities and from its program Make certain to collect critical use event—when lessons and reviews? How can your unit move information. Regularly incor- effective practices can be more from living in the “report card” porate it into your planning clearly illustrated. culture to discovering more and implementation. Search, effective ways to improve what it inquiry, and observation are the 2. Learn from the best prac- knows and how it learns? three methods for collecting this tices of other organizations. intelligence. When searching, Look at the successful pro- According to David A. Garvin use comparisons. Remember cesses that other fuels or fire of Harvard Business School, six to crosscheck to validate the management programs are specific tasks are critical to orga- accuracy of the information. using to see how they might nizational learning. By engaging When using the inquiry method, be applied to your unit. One in these tasks (below), a unit can be exploratory by asking open- way to do this is through the significantly improve both its pro- ended questions. Observation Wildland Fire Lessons Learned grams and its learning. is particularly important when Center’s Website’s , the By examining your learning envi- unit resides inside individuals’ online community center for ronment, your learning processes, heads. If “we know more than this country’s interagency and your leadership, you can bet- we can tell,” the observation wildland fire community. Its ter measure your unit’s level of method is particularly effective member directory identifies learning—as well as its improve- in program reviews. Although current projects that individu- ments over time. These six critical program reviews generally take als are working on, particularly tasks can be directly applied to all place in the off-season, every- in fuels. These “neighborhoods” wildland fire fuels programs: one can learn more effectively Continued on page 58

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 57 personal climate, how differences This survey tool is available online can continue to take the survey are valued, and the openness to through the Wildland Fire Lessons periodically. new ideas. Learned Center at . Individuals Acknowledgments cesses assessed are experimen- can take the survey and have their David A. Garvin, Francesca Gino, and Amy tation, information collection, scores measured against others in Edmonson of Harvard Business School analysis, education, training, and the wildland fire community. From for developing the first of its kind organizational learning survey. information transfer. these survey scores, individuals and 3. Leadership. There are eight dif- units can then see in which areas References ferent aspects of how managers they are strong—or, on the other Garvin, D. 2000. Learning in action. who communicate and relate to hand, the areas in which they need Boston, MA: Harvard Business School employees are evaluated. work. To continue their pursuit to Press.  improve their fuels programs, units

A Six-Step Tool To Improve How Your Unit Is Learning (continued) Continued from page 57 tions in an AAR: 1) What was the lem by looking at what was plan? 2) What actually happened? planned, what happened, and are specifically designed for 3) Why did it happen? And, 4) why it happened. Regrettably, communities of practice—net- What are we going to do (sus- it is all too common that we try works of people—to share tain or improve) next time?] To to correct a problem without knowledge about their fire properly use the AAR process, it truly analyzing what happened management programs. In is imperative to take its answers and why. addition, Lessons Learned to the process’s fourth question Center Information Collection and incorporate what will be sus- 6. Transfer knowledge through- Team (ICT) reports are another tained and improved into your out the organization. This is way to learn about the effective short- and long-term planning. the true learning organization practices of other fuels organi- Units that successfully do this, status test. You need to ensure zations. Two recent ICT reports actually assign individuals to be that you set aside time dur- have focused on wildland fire responsible for incorporating ing planning and information use programs—from a unit that the AARs’ recommendations into meetings to share new knowl- had its first wildland fire use their fuels program planning edge with your fuels and fire fire to a unit with a 35-year his- process. management staff—as well as tory of wildland fire use. Both with other units. The Lessons of these reports are available at: 4. Experiment with new Learned Center is a convenient . approaches that you are learn- what you have learned beyond ing from other fuels programs, the scope of your individual 3. Learn from your own experi- or that evolve from your unit’s unit. The AAR “rollup” serves as ences and past history. You own AAR process. Or, you might a beneficial format for units to can achieve this by ensuring want to try a different approach, record and share their lessons that you continually examine especially if what you’ve been and effective practices. The your unit’s past performance. doing hasn’t been meeting your rollup captures the AAR’s suc- You can best achieve this by needs. Remember: It is extremely cesses, challenges, training cur- using the After Action Review important to listen to your unit’s riculum, and unresolved issue (AAR) process* to learn from members who have a different recommendations. Individual all your projects, whether they perspective—to constantly be units and program reviewers be mechanical fuels treatments, open to adopting a new ideas. should submit these to the prescribed burns, or wildland Lessons Learned Center. The fire use events. [The four ques- 5. Encourage systematic problem AAR rollup form is available at

* For more information on the AAR learning tool solving among all members of . Learned Center in the Fire Management Today issue on Safety (66(2). path while trying to solve a prob-

Fire Management Today 58 2006 Photo Contest Winners Announced Carol LoSapio

urpassing our expectations, Fire • Miscellaneous (fire effects, fire Management Today received weather, fire-dependent communi- New Contest Procedures 424 images from 73 people for ties or species, etc.). New timelines and guidelines are S being developed for the next Fire our 2006 photo contest. Thanks to After the contest deadline in March, everyone who contributed their best Management Today photo con- we evaluated the submissions and fire-related images to this year’s test. These will be announced in eliminated all technically flawed competition. (The winning images a future issue of FMT. images, such as those with soft are displayed beginning on page 60.) focus or low resolution. Despite We asked people to submit images these technical problems, many of The three judges then reviewed, in six categories: these images were otherwise out- scored, and ranked the remaining standing. images based on traditional photog- • Wildland fire, raphy criteria. They asked questions • Prescribed fire, Next, two wildland fire safety experts such as: • Wildland/urban interface, reviewed the images to ensure that • Aerial resources, they did not show unsafe firefight- • Is the composition skillful and • Ground resources, and ing practices (unless that was their dynamic? purpose). If an unsafe practice was • Are the colors and patterns effec- Carol LoSapio is a technical publication evident, we disqualified the image tive? editor for the USDA Forest Service, Fort from competition. • Does the image tell a story or con- Collins, CO. vey a mood? 

Thanks To Our Fire Photo Experts We assembled an excellent panel of Safety Manager. Shelby has worked Forest Service, Natural Resource judges, people with years of photog- for the Forest Service in an inter- Inventory System, Fort Collins, raphy experience. We also ensured agency position with the Bureau of CO. Roy spent the first half of his that fire safety experts evaluated the Land Management for nine years. Forest Service career on ranger dis- photos. We appreciate the time and Judges tricts in the Northern and Eastern skill that these panel members gave Regions and maintains an active to this effort: • Dave Steinke is an assistant director interest and involvement in both for public affairs for the USDA Forest Safety Experts wildland and prescribed fire. Service, Rocky Mountain Region. He • Mary Bollinger is a visitor infor- • Tammy Denney is a webmaster for runs the Creative Services shop, pro- mation specialist with the USDA the USDA Forest Service, Fire and ducing videotapes, still photography, Forest Service Arapaho and Aviation Management, Washington, presentations, and exhibits; prepar- Roosevelt National Forests and DC. She has been with the agency ing and implementing Web content; Pawnee National Grassland. She for more than 19 years. As webmas- and conducting training and meeting has worked in this position since ter, Tammy develops and designs facilitation. Dave has been involved 1996, developing booklets, bro- specialized fire-related communica- with fire his entire Forest Service chures, displays, flyers, handouts, tion materials for a broad audience. career. He is currently qualified as a and various publications designed Her diversified experience includes National Guard liaison, fire photog- to communicate forest and grass- national contracting, budget and rapher, type 1 incident information land management messages to the fiscal management, public affairs, officer, and instructs students in general public. Mary has served as wildland fire safety, and fuels pro- beginning and advanced information a fire information officer on both gram analysis. officer training. Dave co-produced prescribed and wildland fires. Prior • Shelby Gales, Fire Operations the two-hour documentary film, The to joining the Forest Service, Mary Safety Manager for the USDA Greatest Good, the Forest Service worked for 15 years as a program Forest Service Pacific Northwest centennial film on the history of the coordinator for community health Region, is currently acting as the agency. information and education in Forest Service Fire Operations • Roy Mita is an application devel- Maine. oper and analyst for the USDA

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 59 Wildland Fire

First Place, Wildland Fire. Canopy fire  explodes in a stand of dead spruce during the Tracy Avenue Fire, Homer, AK. Photo: Wade Wahrenbrock, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Soldotna, AK, 2005.

 Second Place, Wildland Fire. Smoke column from a helitorch burnout operation on the Bighorn Fire, Crow Indian Reservation, MT. Photo: Suzy Walton, USDA Forest Service, Tonasket, Ranger District, Tonasket, WA, 2005.

 Third Place, Wildland Fire. Sheep evacuated on the Hinman Fire, Steamboat Springs, CO. Photo: Kari Greer, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID, 2002.

 Honorable Mention, Wildland Fire. Rumsey Fire Lookout destroyed by fire near Lake Berryessa, CA. Photo: Mike Forster, member, International Association of Fire Photographers, San Francisco, CA, 2004.

Fire Management Today 60 Prescribed Fire

First Place,  Prescribed Fire. A strip-head fire at dusk on the Butte Prescribed Fire at Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA. Photo: Eric Siemer, USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA, 2004.

 Second Place, Prescribed Fire. Spot-pattern ignition under  Third Place, Prescribed Fire. All-terrain vehicle power torch is twilight on the West Hunter Prescribed Fire on the Wenatchee used on a prescribed burn in the Cimarron National Grasslands, National Forest, Wenatchee, WA. Photo: Eli Lehmann, USDA Elkhart, KS. Photo: Brandyn Harvey, USDA Forest Service, Pike Forest Service, Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest, Interagency Hotshot Crew, Palmer Lake, CO, 2005. Concrete, WA, 2004.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 61 Wildland/Urban Interface

First Place,  Wildland/Urban Interface. Firefighter Seth Tuuri, Black Hills National Forest, Bearlodge Ranger District, battles a structure fire on a ranch near Aladdin, WY. In an effort to conserve engine water, Tuuri used a residential hose with a spray nozzle. Photo: Gary C. Chancey, USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD, 2005.

 Second Place, Wildland/Urban Interface. Helitanker drops  Third Place, Wildland/Urban Interface. Smoke management at retardant around an observatory during the Florida Fire on the its finest! The Legion Curve Prescribed Fire on the J.N. “Ding” Coronado National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ. Photo: Jayson Coil, Darling National Wildlife Refuge, FL, was burned on a day Sedona Fire District, Sedona, AZ; and division supervisor on with perfect winds that prevented its smoke from impacting Oltrogee’s Southwest Area Type 1 Incident Management Team, any roadways or populated areas. The control line at the road Flagstaff, AZ, 2005. boundary held the fire as planned. Photo: Paul Ryan, J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel, FL, 2004.

Fire Management Today 62 Aerial Resources

 First Place, Aerial Resources. Helicopter drops retardant on the Florida Fire, Coronado National Forest, Tucson, AZ Photo: Jayson Coil, Sedona Fire District, Sedona, AZ; and division supervisor on Oltrogee’s Southwest Area Type 1 Incident Management Team, Flagstaff, AZ, 2005.

 Second Place,  Third Place, Aerial Resources. Aerial Helitack Resources. rappellers Firing off practice during a dropping into prescribed fire terrain during a on the Tulelake training exercise National in Monument, Wildlife CO. Photo: Kari Preserve, CA. Greer, National Photo: Eric Interagency Fire Siemer, USDA Center, Boise, ID, Forest Service, 2005. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA, 2005.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 63 Ground Resources

First Place,  Ground Resources. Firefighter retrieves additional firing tools during night burnout operation on the Blossom Complex, Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, OR. Photo: Eli Lehmann, USDA Forest Service, Mount Baker– Snoqualmie National Forest, Concrete, WA, 2005.

Second Place,  Ground Resources. Firefighter silhouetted under madrone tree during night burnout operation on the Blossom Complex, Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, OR. Photo: Eli Lehmann, USDA Forest Service, Mount Baker– Snoqualmie National Forest, Concrete, WA,  Third Place, Ground Resources. Firefighter falls 2005. a hazard snag during mop-up on the Pot Peak Fire, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA. In falling this snag, wearing a pack would reduce the firefighter’s ability to quickly retreat to safety. Photo: Eli Lehmann, USDA Forest Service, Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest, Concrete, WA, 2004.

Fire Management Today 64 Miscellaneous

 First Place, Miscellaneous. Lightning strikes over the Beaverjack Fire—as seen from Hells Half Lookout on the Bitterroot National Forest, Hamilton, MT. Photo: Mark S. Moak, Rocky Mountain College, Billings, MT; and lookout at Hells Half Lookout, Bitterroot National Forest, 2005.

 Third Place, Miscellaneous. Single lightning bolt strikes the Deschutes National Forest, OR. Photo: Chris Jensen, USDA  Second Place, Miscellaneous. Smoke from the Deep Harbor Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR, 1994. Fire levels off at sunset on the Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA. Photo: Eli Lehmann, USDA Forest Service, Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest, Concrete, WA, 2004.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 65 Into the Fire: Video Tribute to Wildland Firefighters Hutch Brown

atrick Michael Karnahan is one talented individual. As a A former firefighter with the USDA Forest Service, Pprofessional artist and per- Karnahan likes to write songs about natural former, he not only paints some resource issues, particularly firefighting. great scenes—including dramatic depictions of firefighting (see Fire Management Today 59[4]: 4–7)— but also writes some great songs related songs—some traditional, Fire,” into a stirring video tribute performed by his California-based some original—called Into the to wildland firefighters. Featuring a Black Irish Band. Forest. The band was chosen to full array of firefighting scenes, the perform along with many other video—like the song—captures the A former firefighter with the USDA talented singers, songwriters, and toil and sacrifice of firefighters in a Forest Service, Karnahan likes to performers (mostly Forest Service way that is both skillful and inspir- write songs about natural resource employees) at the Smithsonian ing. Both the song and the video issues, particularly firefighting. In Folklife Festival on the National quickly became favorites in my 2005, the Black Irish Band released Mall in Washington, DC, commem- household, especially with my 6- an entire album of conservation- orating the Forest Service’s centen- year-old son, reflecting their poten- nial in June/July 2005. tial to instill future generations with respect for the land—and for Hutch Brown is a writer/editor for the USDA Forest Service, Chief’s Office, The band turned one of Karnahan’s the firefighters who serve us so Washington, DC. original songs, called “Into the well. 

Into the Fire—Members of the California-based Black Irish Band perform their tribute to wildland firefighters “Into the Fire” on the Groveland Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest, at the site of the 2004 Tuolumne Fire that took the life of California Department of Forestry firefighter Eva Schicke. Members of the Groveland Interagency Hotshots hike past in background. Photo: Jerry Snyder, USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.

Fire Management Today 66 Guidelines for Contributors

Editorial Policy Release Authorizations. Non-Federal Style. Authors are responsible for using Fire Management Today (FMT) is an Government authors and coauthors must wildland fire terminology that conforms international quarterly magazine for the sign a release to allow their work to be in the to the latest standards set by the National wildland fire community.FMT welcomes public domain and on the World Wide Web. In Wildfire Coordinating Group under the unsolicited manuscripts from readers on any addition, all photos that are not the property National Interagency Incident Management subject related to fire management. Because of the Federal Government require a written System. FMT uses the spelling, capitalization, space is a consideration, long manuscripts release by the photographer. The author and hyphenation, and other styles recommended might be abridged by the editor, subject to photo release forms are available from General in the United States Government Printing approval by the author; FMT does print short Manager Melissa Frey. Office Style Manual, as required by the U.S. pieces of interest to readers. Department of Agriculture. Authors should Logo. Authors who are affiliated should use the U.S. system of weight and measure, Submission Guidelines submit a camera-ready logo for their agency, with equivalent values in the metric system. Your manuscript may be hand-written, typed, institution, or organization. or word-processed, and you may submit Try to keep titles concise and descriptive; it either by e-mail or by mail to one of the Electronic files. You may submit your subheadings and bulleted material are useful following addresses: manuscript either by mail or by e-mail. If you and help readability. As a general rule of clear are mailing a word-processed manuscript, writing, use the active voice (e.g., write, “Fire General manager: submit it on a 3-1/2 inch, IBM-compatible managers know…” and not, “It is known…”). USDA Forest Service disk. Please label all disks carefully with Provide spellouts for all abbreviations. Consult Attn: Melissa Frey, F&AM Staff name(s) of file(s) and system(s) used. Submit recent issues (at ) for placement of the author’s Avenue, SW a disk, in one of these formats: WordPerfect name, title, agency affiliation, and location, Washington, DC 20250-1107 5.1 for DOS; WordPerfect 7.0 or earlier for as well as for style of paragraph headings and tel. 202-205-0955, fax 202-205-1401 Windows 95; Microsoft Word 6.0 or earlier for references. e-mail: [email protected] Windows 95; Rich Text format; or ASCII. Tables. Tables should be logical and Managing editor: Do not embed illustrations (such as photos, understandable without reading the text. USDA Forest Service maps, charts, and graphs) in the electronic Include tables at the end of the manuscript. Attn: Paul Keller file for the manuscript.We will accept digital P.O. Box 361 images if the image was shot at the highest Photos and Illustrations. Clearly label all (overnight express mail: 70220 E Hwy 26) resolution using a camera with at least 2.5 photos and illustrations (figure 1, 2, 3, etc.; Rhododendron, OR 97049 megapixels or if the image was scanned at 300 photograph A, B, C, etc.). At the end of the tel. 503-622-4861, fax 503-622-3056 lines per inch or equivalent with a minimum manuscript, include clear, thorough figure e-mail: [email protected] output size of 5 × 7 inches. Submit each and photo captions labeled in the same way illustration in a standard interchange format as the corresponding material (figure 1, 2, Author Information. Include the complete such as EPS, TIFF, or JPEG, accompanied by 3; photograph A, B, C; etc.). Captions should name(s), title(s), affiliation(s), and address(es) a high-resolution (preferably laser) printout. make photos and illustrations understandable of the author(s), as well as telephone and fax For charts and graphs, include the raw data without reading the text. For photos, indicate numbers and e-mail information. If the same needed to reconstruct them. the name and affiliation of the photographer or a similar manuscript is being submitted and the year the photo was taken. elsewhere, include that information also.

Contributors Wanted We need your fire-related articles and photographs for Fire Management Today! Feature articles should be up to about 2,000 words in length but may be longer. We also take very short items. Subjects of articles published in Fire Management Today include: Aviation Firefighting experiences Communication Incident management Cooperation Information management (including systems) Ecosystem management Personnel Equipment/technology Planning (including budgeting) Fire behavior Preparedness Fire ecology Prevention/Education Fire effects Safety Fire history Suppression Fire science Training Fire use (including prescribed fire) Weather Fuels management Wildland/urban interface To help prepare your submission, see “Guidelines for Contributors” in this issue.

Volume 66 • No. 4 • Fall 2006 67