United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Fire Management Volume 51, No.4 1990 Notes United States Department of Fire Agriculture Management Forest Service An international quarterly periodical Notes devoted to forest fire management Volume 51, No.4 1990 Contents Short Features 3 Wildland-Urban Interface Emergency Responses: 8 Incident Business Management Coordinator Positions What Influences Them? William G. Bradshaw Hanna J. Cortner, Robert M. Swinford, and Michael R. Williams 13 Acquisition Guidelines for FEPP Francis R. Russ 9 The Haines Index and Idaho Wildfire Growth Paul Werth and Richard Ochoa 15 Proceedings of 1988 Interior West Fire Council Annual Meeting and Workshop 14 Vegetative Management in the Wildland-Urban Martin E. Alexander and Gordon F. Bisgrove Interface Dick Manning 22 National Advanced Resource Technology Center Course Schedule for Fiscal Year 1992 16 A Power Backpack Pump With Foam Capability Tom French 25 The 1992 National Wildland Fire Training Conference 18 The 1988 Wildland Fire Season: Revisions to Wage, Equipment, and Training Standards 27 FIREFAMILY Returns, Revised Katie Mac Millen Donna M. Paananen 21 A Laser-Based Forest Fire Detection System 42 The Range Finder J.P. Greene Jim Shotwell 23 Computer Calculation of the Keetch-Byram Drought 43 Fire Training Index-Programmers Beware! J. Howard Parman Martin E. Alexander 26 FCFAST: Fort Collins Fire Access Software Larry S. Bradshaw and Patricia L. Andrews Fire Management Notes is published by the Forest Service of the United States 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 28 Hurricane Hugo and the CL-215 required by law of this Department. George Brooks and Fred Fuchs Subscriptions may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing once. Washington, DC 20402. Send suggestions and articles to Chief, Forest Service (Attn: Fire Management Notes), 32 The Florence Fire: Lesson in Incident Command P.O. Box 96090, U.S. Department of AgricUlture. Washington, DC 20090-6090. Cooperation Edward R. Madigan, Secretary Francis R. Russ Charles A. Knight U.S. Department of Agriculture General Manager F. Dale Robertson, Chief Doris N. cetarter 34 Fire Behavior Service Center for Extreme Wildfire Forest Service Editor LA Amicareila, Director Activity Fire and Aviation Management Charles L. Bushey and Robert W. Mutch U.S. Department 01Agriculture programs, services. and employmenl are open 10all on Ihe basis of merit, without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Disclaimer: The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience 01 the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement of any product or service by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Individual actnors are responsible for the technical accuracy of the material presented in Fire Front Cover: Firefighters in protective clothing fight to save structure in wildland. Management Notes. 2 Fire Management Notes Wildland-Urban Interface Emergency Responses: What Influences Them? Hanna J. Cortner, Robert M. Swinford, and Michael R. Williams Professor, School ofRenewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ: and. respectively, USDA Forest Service, fire prevention officer, Fire and Aviation Management, Washington, DC. and district ranger. Plumas National Forest, Greenville Ranger District, Greenville, CA Introduction beyond their traditional wildland fire­ other Federal, State, and local fighting role? resource management agencies and The wildland firefighters' job is These concerns. highlighted by the public safety organizations. In total, changing, in large measure from serious interface fire events of recent approximately 230 Forest Service problems associated with the years, led the Forest Service to employees and 100 cooperators were wildland-urban interface. More undertake a policy analysis examin­ interviewed. development is occurring at the edge ing these issues. The study examined This article examines five factors of forest boundaries, on tracts of pri­ agency policy and the actions forests the study concluded influenced the vate land within forest boundaries, have taken or anticipate will be type and level of response national and in metropolitan areas within easy taken. to respond, equip, and train in forests make to structural fire and drives of the forest. There are more the areas of structural fire, search other emergency assistance situa­ residents, more tourists, and and rescue, emergency medical tions. The five factors are: presence, increased values at risk. Wildland assistance, and hazardous materials. public expectations, agreements, sup­ firefighters are increasingly encoun­ pression priorities, and national tering structural fires and other mobilization. nonwildland fire emergency assist­ Who is to speak on behalf of those ance situations. resources when decisions are made Presence Historically, it has been common to permit urban expansion in the practice for wildland firefighters in interface? There are two kinds of presence to the USDA Forest Service to respond consider: the presence and capa­ to reported structural fires, vehicle bilities of the Forest Service and the fires, vehicle accidents, and other sit­ To conduct the study, a joint For­ presence and capabilities of the local uations where emergency assistance est Service-University of Arizona emergency assistance organizations. is required. However, the frequency study team visited 16 national forests In many remote districts, there is no of these situations is increasing as throughout the country. One-half of organized fire protection. In this" no interface pressures intensify. There the forests was randomly selected, man's land," the Forest Service is are concerns that wildland firefight­ one from each Forest Service admin­ the only fire department. Structures ing resources are being committed to istrative region except Alaska. The present a threat to wildlands, and the structural protection at the expense of other half was selected to represent a Forest Service is the only one there wildland resources. Moreover. man­ geographical diversity as well as a to respond. Moreover, even if the agers, crews, and cooperators are diversity of interface situations. agency's capability is limited and in concerned whether their wildland Overall, the 16 forests varied widely reality not much can be done to save training and equipment adequately in the size of their fire programs, the structure, there is still a need to prepare them to deal with the budgets, workforce organization, and respond; to do otherwise would risk increasing and varied emergency complexity of cooperative arrange­ public censure. This need even tran­ response situations they now face. ments. The site visits, conducted scends meeting the test that says Questions have also been raised between October 1989 and February response should be related to a that perhaps it is the complex set of 1990, lasted approximately 1112 days. "threat to the national forest." Con­ cooperative and mutual aid agree­ During the first day, roundtable dis­ sequently, on one forest, personnel ments with State and local fire and cussions were held with selected reported responding to a structural emergency response organizations district and forest personnel from all fire even when there was a foot of that are placing personnel in non­ levels of the forest organization­ snow on the ground. wildland fire situations. Do the from first responders to members of Many kinds of emergencies involv­ agreements have explicit provisions the management team. On the second ing vehicles and individuals-traffic or create informal expectations that morning, another roundtable discus­ collisions, shootings, falls, and lost wildland organizations will move sion was held with personnel from children-s-can occur on or near wild- 1990 Volume 51, Number 4 3 lands. Forest Service stations that that fact helped to keep them out controversy and political headaches. represent authority and signify offi­ of the vise of public pressure. On the other extreme, the local cial help. Stations along a highway, Another way to reduce presence organization may be a professional especially in areas distant from any might be to use contracts and agree­ and well-trained and -equipped outfit. other official-looking organization, ments to tum over responsibilities to Generally, the more sophisticated the are the natural, first choice for any­ local authorities. Generally, however, local responder, the less the per­ one seeking help. Government forests did not believe this would be ceived need for the Forest Service to personnel and facilities represent tele­ a good idea. Several felt it was a become involved in structural fire­ phones and radios, answers, and politically infeasible option, par­ fighting. Local responders are often assistance. ticularly in local areas. "This first on the scene. During incidents, In areas where there may be wouldn't fly!" and "It would be the responsibilities are divided between locally organized capabilities, Forest second dumbest thing we ever did, structures and wildlands; the local Service presence can still necessitate and I can't remember the first!" entities fight the structural fire and a response. If a Forest Service engine were two of the comments heard at the Forest Service defends the wild­ looks like