fire forest service management notes - usda

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Volume 49, No.41988

FireManagementNotes

FireManagementNotes An international quarterly periodical

devoted to forest fire management

Contents3 Fire-Danger Rating: The Next 20 Years

John E. Deeming

9 Using NFDRS-Predicted 1000-Hour Fuel Moisture as aDaily Management Tool

Janice L. Peterson

13 Wildland Fire Engine StandardsJ.P. Greene

14 Communications Cooperation: Wildland Fire Agenciesin the Northwest

Emilio R. Sibayan

16 McCall Smokejumper Base DedicationDan Dzuranin

18 Teaching Old Dogs New TricksLinda Knowlton

21 Fuel Treatment Assessment-1985 Fire Season inRegion 8

George G. Martin

25 Helicopter Foam SystemArt Trask

27 Contracted Fire Detection Services-a SavingsRod Chaffee and Francis Mohr

30 How To Estimate Tree Mortality Resulting FromUnderburning

Elizabeth D. Reinhardt and Kevin C. Ryan

38 Texas Big Country Fire Puts ICS to the TestBill Terry

Cover; A PB4Y-2 airtanker makingdrop on brushpile at McCall Airport, ID.See story on p.16 .

2

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

®lVolume 49, NO.41988

Fire Management Notes is published by theForest Service of the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.The Secretaryat Agriculture has determinedthat the publication 01this periodical isnecessary in the transaction of the publicbusiness required by taw ot this Department.

Suascriptions may be obtained from theSuperintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office. Washington,D.C. 20402

NOTE- The use of trade,1irm, or corporationnames in this publication is lor theinformation and convenience of the reader.Such use does not constitute an orucrarendorsement of any product or service by theU.S. Department of Agriculture.

Disclaimer: Individual authors areresponsible for the technical accuracy of thematerial presented in Fire ManagementNotes.

Send suggestions and articles to Chief,Forest Service (Ann: Fire ManagementNotes), P.O. Box 96090, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, DC 20090-6090.

Richard E. Lyng, SecretaryU.S. Department of Agriculture

F. Dale Robertson, ChiefForest .Service

L.A. Amicarella, DirectorFire and Aviation Management

Francis A. RussGeneral Manager

Doris N, CelarierEditor

Fire Managemenl Noles

Fire-Danger Rating: The Next 20 Years"John E. Deeming'

Retired, USDA Forest Service, and wildlandfire management consultant, Bend, OR

For the next 10 years, few changeswill be made to the fire-danger ratingsystem. During that time, the focuswill be on the automation of weatherobserving systems and the streamlining of the computation and displayof ratings. The time horizon for projecting fire danger will be pushed to30 days by the late 1990's. A closealignment of the fire-danger ratingsystem with the fire-behavior andfire-planning systems will occur withthe release of the second-generationfire model in the late 1990's. Improved utilization of all of thesesystems will be delayed until morestructured approaches to decisionmaking are adopted by management.By 2007, expert systems utilizingreal time directly and remotelysensed weather and fuel moisturedata will be on line.

Research to develop a means ofevaluating wildland flammabilitybegan in the United States more than60 years ago. Coert du Bois, S.B.Show, E.!. Kotok, and H.T.Gisborne dominated the early fireresearch scene. Six fire-danger rating"meters" were developed between1930 and 1946 by Gisborne for use

'Reprinted from Proceedings of the Symposium on Wildland Fire 2000. 1987 April27-30: South Lake Tahoe. CA. Gen. Tech.Rep. PNW-IOI. Berkeley. CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. PacificSouthwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1987. 258 p.

"The author thanks the following people whotook the time to share their thoughts and ideas:M.E. Alexander, P.c. Andrews, R.E. Burgan,J.D. Cohen, M.A. Fosberg, F.F. Fujioka,R.D. Gale, W.A. Main, R.E. Rothermel, A.J.Simard, and C.E. Van Wagner.

1988 Volume 49, Number 4

in the Northern Rockies. Programspatterned after that of Gisborne werepursued in many sections of theUnited States in the 1940's and1950's. John 1. Keetch worked on anational fire-danger rating systemfrom 1958 to 1963. By the late1960's, researchers M.J. Schroeder(the United States), A. McArthur(Australia), and C.E. Van Wagner(Canada) were setting the pace infire-danger rating research anddevelopment.

Mark 1. Schroeder organized theUnited States national program atFort Collins, CO, in 1968; I joinedthe unit in 1970. James W. (Wally)Lancaster, Michael (Mike) Fosberg,R.W. (Bill) Furman, and I workedtogether until the 1972 version of theNational Fire-Danger Rating System(NFDRS) was completed (Deemingand others 1972) and the computerized version (AFFIRMS) on line(Helfman and others 1975, 1978).

From 1973 to 1975, Wally Lancaster and I continued with the NFDRSprogram at the Boise InteragencyFire Center (BIFC) with the able helpof R.1. (Bob) Straub. R.E. (Bob)Burgan, Jack D. Cohen, and I werethe key players from 1975 through1978. We made the 1978 update ofthe System (Deeming and others1977). That work was done at theIntermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory (formerly the Northern ForestFire Laboratory) (Bradshaw and others 1983).

Having "been in the business" for17 years, looking 20 years into thefire-danger-rating future for thismeeting seemed like a reasonableundertaking. However, I sought theviews of others with fire-danger rat-

ing backgrounds in Canada and theUnited States, hopefully to balancemy own biases. A number of thosedistinguished people responded, and Ihave "pooled" their "vision" in this20-year outlook.

For this exercise, I made a sincereattempt to avoid the "Star Wars"syndrome, limiting my futuring bythe "probable" and trying not to bedistracted by the "possible." Thatwas not easy in this bells-and-whistles era of dial-up color radar, pulldown menus, 80-megabyte PC harddisks, satellite data relay, and so on.Neither did I intend to restate any ofthe issues highlighted in my 1983"reflections" paper on the development, application, and future ofNFDRS (Deeming 1983).

This paper addresses the followingtopics:

• The current state of fire-dangerrating research and development.

• The need for fire-danger ratings.• Understanding the character of

fire danger.• The fire-danger rating system of

2007.• The practice of rating fire

danger.• Communication and display of

rating.

Current State of Fire-DangerRating Research and Development

No work has been done on theNFDRS since the research project atMissoula, MT, was disbanded in1978. Forest Service researchers atEast Lansing, MI, however, have.completed a number of validationstudies (Haines and others 1983,1985; Main and Haines 1983). At the

3

Forest Service's Intermountain FireSciences Laboratory, Andrews (1987)is developing a technique for matching fire-danger rating with differentmeasures of fire business.

The NFDRS users' meetings wereheld in 1985 at Salt Lake City, UT,and in 1986 at Harper's Ferry, VA,to assess the need for additionalresearch (and development). An outgrowth of those meetings is theimpending transfer of R.E. Burganfrom Missoula, MT, to Macon, GA.His assignment is to resolve NFDRSshortcomings identified by easternusers.

A 4-year contract for AFFIRMShas recently been awarded to theGeneral Electric Company (GE).(AFFIRMS was developed on GEequipment, and GE provided theservice until 1980.) A multiyear program to develop a replacementsystem for AFFIRMS will begin laterthis year. That system will be calledthe Weather Information Management System (WIMS).

Dick Rothermel and his staff atthe Intermountain Fire SciencesLaboratory are planning a programof research to develop the secondgeneration mathematical fire model.His project team has also been givenan assignment to develop an integrated fire management system inclusiveof needs ranging from fire-behaviorprediction to fire planning (Rothermel and Andrews 1987).

Dr. Mike Fosberg is embarking ona 5-year program at the RiversideFire Laboratory to develop mediumand long-range weather forecasts forfire management (Fosberg andFujioka 1987).

4

And we are here talking about firedanger rating.

The Need for Fire-Danger Ratings

The need for a fire-danger ratingsystem will not become less duringthe next two decades. The range offire management tasks is expanding,and those tasks require greaterunderstanding and skill. They areincreasingly complex (measured suppression response, fire effects), andthe consequences of making poordecisions are more costly and politically sensitive.

The time horizon for projectingfire-danger rating will certainly bepushed beyond the current 24 and 30hours, a lead time sufficient for making decisions that affect local andsubregional presuppression activities.The need to share increasinglyexpensive and scarce suppressionresources among widely separatedcooperators, however, has causedmanagers to ask for weather and firedanger forecasts well beyond a couple of days.

The need for 15- and 30-day firedanger projections has been documented. Thirty days is a goal forsubmission of emergency fundingrequests to the Congress and someState legislatures. The Washingtonoffice of the Forest Service requires

Forest Service regions to give 2weeks' notice of a requirement forsupplemental presuppression funding.Since May 1985, BlFC has issued an"experimental" regional-scale, 30day projection of wildfire activity(U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service 1986).

By the mid-1990's, the formats ofboth short- and extended-range firedanger predictions will include estimates of uncertainty. The uncertaintyresulting from the stochastic natureof the environmental drivers of firedanger, as well as the uncertaintyinherent in the forecasting process,will be quantified. The currentpractice of making single-value,deterministic predictions' is notproviding users with a complete picture of the actual fire-dangersituation.

Though it will not happen in thenear future, fire managers willdevelop and employ structured decision-making systems based in themanagement sciences, includingdecision theory. Only then will management be able to consider thenatural variability and stochasticcharacter of fire danger properly.

Understanding the Character ofFire Danger

Improvements to the performanceand use of the NFDRS during thenext several years will be modest.One reason is our poor understandingof the temporal and spatial scales offire-danger. Getting more to thepoint, we do not know what scales offire danger are possible to characterize and/or predict.

Fire Management Notes

For instance, it is impossible tocharacterize. with a single rating, thefire danger near the ocean wherethere is a twice-per-day passage of asea-breeze front. In such situations,the extreme diurnal variability ofburning conditions requires anapproach more akin to that of predicting fire behavior.

Another shortcoming is our poorunderstanding of the temporal components of regional fire danger, Oncethose components are identified eachcan be tracked and integrated into aset of meaningful and useful ratings.

The components of a region's firedanger are the result of the interactions of a region's fuels and weathercycles----diurnal, synoptic, seasonal,and climatic. Here is an example:The spring fire season in the LakeStates is nearly as predictable asspring itself. Its severity does vary,but there are few surprises. The typical spring fire burns in cured grassand reed-like plant debris, hence thekey fuels are predominantly in thel-hour and lO-hour timelag classes.The spring fire danger is determinedby the highly transient weather elements, wind and relative humidity.

On the other hand, severe fire seasons such as 1976 are anything butroutine. They are typically precededby one to several years of below normal precipitation resulting in lowwater tables and exposure of normally saturated organic soils to theatmosphere. The 1976 class of fireseason poses a completely differentfire-danger rating problem than doesthe spring fire season. Its cause is asubclimatic shift of precipitation-producing weather events and organic


soils that lie at the opposite end ofthe fuel moisture response spectrumfrom dead grass. It is not possible forany single fire-danger index to do agood job in both of these situations.

Future Fire-Danger Rating System

The fire-danger system of 2007will be complicated. Fire danger is acomplex, multidimensional concept;its physical character varies tremendously across the range of conditionsfor which ratings are needed. I amconfident that the fire-danger ratingsystem of 2007 will look a great deallike the 1978 NFDRS.

The NFDRS offers the user achoice of six indexes and components. That number could certainlybe reduced to four: Ignition, fuelenergy. burning, and occurrence.

Fire problems and the needs of theresponsible agencies vary so greatlythat a range of options must beprovided. The menu of choices mustinclude options that index the factorsthat affect ignitability, fireline intensity, composite fuel moisture (fuelenergy). and occurrence.

The fire-danger rating system of2007 will not be integrated with thefire-behavior and fire-planning systems to the degree that it will lose itsidentity.

Fuels. The Rothermel fire spreadmodel (Rothermel 1972, Albini1976) provided the basis for theNFDRS, the Forest Service'sNational Fire Management andAnalysis System (NFMAS) (U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService 1985) and the Fire-

Behavior Prediction System (FBPS)(Rothermel 1983).

The spread model was modified tomeet the special requirements ofNFDRS and NFMAS. Though themodifications were minor, a uniqueset of stylized fuel models had to bedeveloped for each processor. Thishas, unfortunately. confused manyusers of the three systems.

The standard fire-danger ratingfuel model will be a subset of thefuel models used for fire-behaviorpredictions and fire planning. Themost significant change will be thelicensing of users to develop theirown fire-danger rating fuel modelsmuch as they can now do for thefire-behavior prediction system(Burgan 1984).

The fire-danger rating system ofthe future will account for the variation in fuel moisture responses toweather and plant life processes.

5

Consider the Lake States example inthe preceding section and picture thetundra of Canada and Alaska. Contrast the character of those fuels witha common Great Basin fuel-a purestand of annual grasses and forbs.

At least one additional fuel classwill be added to represent organicsoils, tundra, and deep duff and litter. The moisture-response model forthis fuel class will account for transpiration as well as evaporation.Drawdown from transpiration maycontinue long after organic soil moisture reaches equilibrium with theatmosphere.

Live-fuel moisture models will certainly be improved as will dead-fuelmoisture models (Rothermel and others 1986). More importantly forsome areas of the country there willbe a better understanding and modeling of the effects of living plants onfire danger.

A drought index will not beneeded if satisfactory moisture models for organic soils and live fuels aredeveloped.

Fire Danger for Extended Periods (2 to 30 Days). What I havediscussed, thus far, has been firedanger rating in the traditional timerealm---out to 30 hours. In this section the stickier issue of rating firedanger out to 30 days is addressed.

The capability to produce useful 6to lO-day fire-danger rating productswill lag behind yet-to-be-realizedadvances in extended range weatherforecasting. No breakthroughs areexpected for the next 20 years (Harnack 1986), but there is every reasonto expect significant progress in the2- to 6-day range by the mid- tolate-1990's.

6

More to the point of this paper,within 10 years it will be feasible tocalculate daily, worst-case fire-danger ratings out to 6 days. I'm talkinghere about ratings that account forwind, the most elusive and challenging weather element to predict. TheNational Weather Service is now running its most sophisticated predictivemodels out to 10 days. They areshowing great promise.

Beyond 6 days, an entirely different approach and fire-danger ratingformat will be needed. The reasonsare:

• The list of predicted weatherparameters will not include relative humidity and wind.

• The predictions will beexpressed as "departures fromnormal." Weather informationof this type is adaptable for firedanger rating purposes, but itwill be usable only if there is agood historical record of firedanger ratings from which "normal fire danger" can be determined. The required data hasbeen collected and archivedsince the early 1970's (Furmanand Brink 1975, Main et al.1982).

Integration With Fire-Behaviorand Fire-Planning System, DickRothermel is looking ahead to a second-generation fire model that willaccount for the effects of large fuelson fire behavior and, possihly, modelthe behavior of fires burning inorganic soils. That model (or familyof models) should satisfy the specificrequirements of all the NFDR S,NFMAS, and FBPS. That will makeit much easier than now for users tochange from one system to another.

The data demands of the secondgeneration fire model or models willmake them unsuitable for directapplication in the fire-danger ratingbeyond the 6-day timeframe discussed in the previous section. Iforesee a technological discontinuityat that transition point that will likelypersist well beyond 2007.

The Practice of Rating Fire Danger

The Geostationary Orbiting!Environmental Satellite (GOES) andremote automatic weather stations arechanging the way fire-weather data isbeing collected. Since 1978, severalhundred stations have been deployedby State and Federal agencies, andmore are planned. Almost all arenow located in the far West andAlaska, but they will be common inthe East before 2007.

Before the next 20 years havepassed, fire weather data will be collected from specially designednetworks of automatic and manualstations. The numbers and locationsof stations making up those networkswill be determined by requirementspassed down by management. Management will have finally determinedhow good the "answers" must be.

Some users will locate stations inthe "woods," a practice commonlyfollowed by our Canadian colleagues.This will be an improvement forsome. The "worst case" standard fortaking the basic weather observationwill be continued. More attentionwill, however, be given to the timethe "worst" conditions actuallyoccur.

More 'use will be made of weatherdata taken at nonwildland sites suchas airports. Factors will have been


developed to convert a 1- and 3-minute , lO-meter windspeed to anequivalent Ifl-minute, 20-foot windspeed. Neither will there be a need toweigh fuel sticks.

Communication and Display ofFire-Danger Ratings

Automated fire-weather stationswill replace more than half of themanual stations by 1997. Thereplacement system for AFFIRMSwill be in place by 1992. That willjust about do it for the first half ofthe 20-year outlook.

No one knows what WIMS willlook like; that will, however, not beknown until the contract is completed. Because of a consultingagreement with a private company Iwill not discuss my vision of WIMS,except that it will very likely makegood use of micro-computers andwill have limited "expert system"capabilities.

During the second half of the 20year outlook, local data bases willallow each fire management unit todo its own planning; calculate andinterpret its own fire danger, andmake detailed fire behavior predictions for large, multiperiod fires.Uncertainty of both fire-danger andfire-behavior predictions will bequantified and that information incorporated in sophisticated computergenerated decision aids.

By 2007, the moisture contents oftundra, organic soils, and the fullrange of vegetation will be monitoredfrom satellites, and those data sentdirectly to the primary users. Highresolution precipitation data from the


weather radar network will be automatically integrated, along with thesatellite moisture data, into operational fire-danger rating and firebehavior prediction systems.

Summary

The following observations canbe made about the future of firedanger rating systems in the nexttwo decades:

• The need for fire-danger ratingswill not disappear.

• Only modest technical improvements will be made to theNFDRS during the next 10years.

• The 2007 NFDRS will lookmuch like the 1978 NFDRS.

• A better understanding of thecharacter of each region's firedanger will be the key toimproved fire-danger rating system usage.

• Detailed, 6~day projections andregional trends of fire-dangerratings will be feasible by themid-1990's.

• The format of predicted fire danger, beginning in the late1990's, will include ranges ofuncertainty.

• Fire-behavior, fire-danger rating,and fire-planning systems will beclosely integrated, but not fullyintegrated.

• Satellite observations of vegetation and soil moisture conditionswill be integrated into the firedanger rating process.

• Weather radar will be the sourceof high resolution precipitationdata for rating fire danger. _

References

Albini, Frank A. Estimating wildfire behaviorand effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-30.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station; 1976. 92 p.

Andrews, Patricia L. The National Fire-DangerRating System as an indicator of firebusiness. In: Proceedings of the NinthConference on Fire and Forest Meteorology.1987 April 21-24; San Diego, CA. Boston,MA: American Meteorological Society;1987, 57-62. 28t p.

Burgan, Robert E.; Rothermel, 'Richard C.BEHAVE: Fire behavior prediction and fuelmodeling system-FUEL subsystem. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-167. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1984. 126 p.

Bradshaw, Larry S.; Deeming, John E.;Burgan, Robert E.; Cohen, Jack D.;compilers. The National Fire-Danger RatingSystem: Technical documentation. Gen.Tech. Rep. lNT-169. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1984. 44 p.

Deeming, John E.; Lancaster, James W.;'Fosberg, Michael A.; et al. The NationalFire-Danger Rating System. Res. Pap.RM-84. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1972, rev. 1984. 165 p.

Deeming, John E.; Burgan, Robert E.; Cohen,Jack D. The National Fire-Danger RatingSystem-1978. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-39.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station; 1977.:63 p.

Deeming, John E. Reflections on the development, application, and future of theNational Fire-Danger Rating System. In:Proceedings of the Seventh Conference onFire and Forest Meteorology. 1983 April25-29; FI. Collins, CO. Boston, MA:American Meteorological Society; 1983:139-146.

Fosberg, Michael A.; Fujioka, Francis.Medium- and extended-range weatherforecasting in fire management. In:

7

Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Fireand Forest Meteorology. 1987 April 21~24;

San Diego, CA. Boston, MA: AmericanMeteorological Society; 1987: 273-277.281 p.

Furman, R. William; Brink, Glen E. TheNational Fire Weather Library: what it isand how to use it. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-19.Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Forest end Range ExperimentStation; 1975. 8 p.

Haines, Donald A.; Johnson, Von J.; Main,William A. An assessment of threemeasures of long term moisture deficiencybefore critical fire periods. Res. Pap. NC131. S1. Paul, MN: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, North CentralForest Experiment Station; 1976. 13 p.

Haines, Donald A.; Main, William A.; Frost,Jack S.; Simard, Albert J. Fire-dangerratings and wildfire occurrence in theNortheastern United States. Forest Science.29(4) 19-26; 1983.

Haines, Donald A.; Main, William A.;Simard, Albert J. Operational validation ofthe National Fire-Danger Rating System inthe Northeast. In: Proceedings of the EighthConference on Fire and Forest Meteorology;1985 April 29-May 2; Detroit, Ml. Boston,MA: American Meteorological Society;1985: 169-177.

Harnack, Robert P. Principles and methods ofextended period forecasting in the UnitedStates, 1986. Meteorological MonographISSN-0271-1044. Temple Hills, MD:National Weather Association; 1986. 36 p.

Helfman, Robert S.; Furman, R. William;Deeming, John E. AFFIRMS: Automatedforest fire information management andretrieval system. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-15.Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1975. 136 p.

Helfman, Robert S.; Straub, Robert J.;Deeming, John E. Users Guide toAFFIRMS: Time-share computerizedprocessing for fire-danger rating. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-82. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1978. 150 p.

8

Main, William A.; Straub, Robert J.;Paananen, Donna M. FIREFAMILY: Fireplanning with historical weather data. Gen.Tech. Rep. NC-73. St. Paul, MN: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,North Central Forest Experiment Station;1982.31 p.

Main, William A.; Haines, Donald A.Determining appropriate fuel models fromfield observations and a fire characteristicschart. In: Proceedings of the SeventhConference on Fire and Forest Meteorology;1983 April 25-29; F1. Collins, CO. Boston,MA: American Meteorological Society;1983: 47-52.

Rothermel, Richard C. A mathematical modelfor predicting fire spread in wildland fuels.Res. Pap. INT-1I5. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1972. 40 p.

Rothermel, Richard C. How to predict thespread and intensity of forest and rangefires. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143. Ogden,UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station; 1983. 161 p.

Rothermel, Richard C.'; Andrews, Patricia L.Fire behavior system for the full range offire management needs. In: Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Wildland Fire 2000.1987 April 27-30; South Lake Tahoe, CA.Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-IOI. Berkeley, CA:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Forest and RangeExperiment Station, 1987.258 p.

Rothermel, Richard C.; Wilson, Ralph A.;Morris, Glenn A.; Sackett, Stephen S.Modeling moisture content of fine deadwildland fuels: Input to the BEHAVE firebehavior prediction system. Res. Pap.INT-359. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainForest and Range Experiment Station; 1986.61 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. Short-term wildfire situationprojection. Unpublished report. Boise, 10:Intelligence Section, National InteragencyFire Coordiantion Center; 1986. 5 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. Fire management analysis andplanning handbook. Forest Service Handb.5109.19. Washington, DC; 1985.

Dressed to kill.

People who arecareless with fire

are killers. Youcandress them up, butyou can't take themanywhere. Especially,to the forest.Remember, only youcan prevent forestfires...


Using NFDRS-Predicted 1000-Hour FuelMoisture as a Daily Management ToolJanice L. Peterson

Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station, Seattle, WA

Introduction

The National Fire-Danger RatingSystem (NFDRS) (Deeming et al.1977) includes a IOOO-hour time lagfuel-moisture model (NFDR-Th),which is routinely available to mostfire managers. The predictions fromthis model can be used for daily firemanagement planning.

The NFDR-Th was intended to bea nationally applicable, trend-predicting tool. Through modifying NFDRTh model methodology, an adjustedmodel can be developed that predicts, with daily accuracy, regional,fuel-type specific 1000-hour fuelmoisture (Ottmar and Sandberg1985). Thousand-hour fuel moisturecan be used to predict consumptionof woody fuels and duff by broadcastburning (Little et al. 1986, Sandbergand Ottmar 1983). Specifying desiredlevels of fuel consumption hasbecome common practice in prescribing conditions for prescribed fires;now, a quantitative system can bedeveloped that is based on 1000-hourfuel-moisture predictions. Predictingfuel consumption is importantbecause it converts directly to fireduration. Fire duration can be relatedto bole damage in residual trees, soilheating, residual smoke production,and mop-up effort.

Obtaining Regional Accuracy

Two basic approaches are used toestimate lOoo-hour fuel-moisturecontent. The first is the direct measurement of fuel-moisture fromsamples of material in the field. Thesecond method is the modelingapproach, which requires that a


periodic correction calculated fromweather measurements be applied toa running moisture value. In 1978,the NFDRS was updated to include a10OO-hour timelag fuel-moisturemodel to serve as an indicator oflong periods of fire danger andbelow-normal precipitation. Themodel computes fuel moisture frommaximum and minimum daily relative humidities and temperature andprecipitation duration, which areobtained from Remote AutomatedWeather Stations (RAWS). A studymeasuring the accuracy of theNFDRS 1000-hour moisture model(Ottmar 1980) found that, for clearcut and partial cut units in westernWashington and Oregon, the NFDRSunderpredicted measured values byan average of 7 percent. This underprediction results because theNFDRS is species specific, havingbeen developed theoretically andtested against western redcedar samples only, and because the extremelow fuel-moisture value (rather than aunit average) is desired for fire-danger rating purposes.

To predict fire effects, a mean unitfuel moisture is required. In responseto this need, an adjustment model(ADJ- Th) was developed that is similar in structure to the NFDRS modelbut is calibrated to predict a meanunit fuel moisture for fuels characteristic of western Washington andOregon. The ADJ- Th, availablethrough nomographs, is nearly asgood a predictor as measured moisture and clearly superior to theNFDR- Th for this region. Similaradjustment models could easily bedeveloped for other regions to betterrepresent species type variations.

The necessary inputs to the adjustment model are sometimes unavailable. This situation may occurwhen archived data are analyzed orbecause maximum-minimum humidity data are not obtainable frommanual weather stations. In thesecases, adjusting the known NFDRSprediction upward by 7 percent isacceptable.

Predicting Consumption ofLarge Woody Fuels

Scheduling prescribed fire to

achieve desired effects depends onthe ability to predict large-fuel consumption. A 1983 study measuredfuel consumption and fuel moistureon logged units including old-growthand second-growth clearcuttings andshelterwood regeneration cuts (Sandberg and Ottmar 1983). By use oflinear regression analysis, three equations were derived to estimate fuelconsumption for various large-fuelsize classes. The only variable necessary in the equations was the 1000hour fuel moisture. Each of tbe threeequations developed uses one of thethree lQOO-hour fuel-moisture valuesmentioned previously (NFDR-Th,ADJ-Th, and measured).

These predictive equations areexpected to be useful in other regionswhere short-needled conifers dominate the harvested stands. In regionswhere this does not describe thedominant species type, similar equations can be developed.

Although measured fuel moistureproduces the most accurate results,it is operationally impractical toobtain. NFDRS has the advantage ofroutine availability. but it is not

9

regionally specific. By using aregionally adjusted IOOO-hour fuelmoisture model such as the ADJ-Th,accuracy and easy availability canbe combined.

Daily Applications

Fuel consumption and emissionsfrom prescribed slash burning arebeing measured in ongoing studies ofthe Fire and Air Resource Management team in Seattle. These studiesrequire accurate estimates of fuelconsumption so that burning can bescheduled on days that will fulfillstudy objectives. A computer program has been developed that usestheAlxl-Th to give daily fuel-moisture predictions and then calculatesthe associated, expected fuel consumption. By assuming maximum:and minimum relative humidity andtemperature values and no precipitation, the 1000-hour fuel-moisturevalues can be projected into thefuture to indicate the approximatenumber of days required before'specific study units will fall into prescription. Table I shows sampleoutput produced from the computerprogram. Columns 2 through 6 areinput variables used in the models tocalculate predicted fuel moisture.

Columns 7 and 8 are 1000-hourfuel-moisture predictions resultingfrom the NFDR-Th and the ADJ-Th,respectively. Both moisture modelsare calibrated to give accurate dailyresults rather than representingtrends. This calibration is accomplished by changing the way onevariable in the equation is handled.This variable-the boundary valueis the equilibrium moisture content

10

corresponding with the temperatureand relative humidity of the air inimmediate contact with the fuel andprecipitation events of the previous24 hours. The original NFDRSmodel uses a 7-day-average boundaryvalue, which weights the weatherevents of 7 days ago equally with theweather events of the current day.This makes the daily fuel-moistureprediction less likely to change muchin response to short-term, extremeweather. This effect is desirable ifpredicting trends but is undesirable ifdaily accuracy is needed. For thisreason, a l-day boundary value hasbeen used.

Column 9 uses the ADJ-Th in thepredictive equation derived to usethis fuel-moisture value to predict the

I

I

i Working With InmateI

'Fire CrewsI

i The California Department ofI Forestry and Fire Protection has just, issued a self-paced instructional

guide entitled "Working with CalI ifomia Inmate Fire Crews." ThisI guide is designed for non-State

employees who may be assignedI supervisory responsibilities for these,i crews or who will work near these '

crews. It covers the "do's" and the,: important "don'ts" of working with'

: inmates, especially those that per-. tain to State laws.

If you are interested in obtainingi a free copy of this instructional aid,!contact: Camps Coordinator, Cal-I ifornia Department of Forestry and: Fire Protection, P.O. Box 944246,ISacramento, CA 95814.•!

IOOO-hour diameter reduction thatwould occur in a unit prescriptionburned on that day. Columns 10 and11 are the percentages of consumption of the 3- to 9-inch (7.6 to 22.5em) and 9- to 20-inch (22.5 to 50.8cm) fuels, respectively, associatedwith the predicted diameter reduction. Diameter reduction is convertedto percentage of consumption byusing an average diameter of thefuels existing in each of these twosize classes. The average diametersused were those calculated from 33experimental units in western Washington and Oregon.

Conclusion

The IOOO-hour fuel-moisture valueis an extremely useful tool formaking predictions necessary in dailyfire-management planning. TheNFDRS provides a convenient- sourceof 1000-hour fuel-moisture predictions; however, a species-specificmodel can be developed that combines convenience and a greaterdegree of regional accuracy. The1000-hour fuel-moisture predictionscan be calculated by using a dailyrather than a 7-day boundary valueand used for making consumptionpredictions for large woody fuels.Fuel-moisture values can be projecteda week or more in advance by usingpredicted or assumed weather conditions as inputs in either model. Thisknowledge can be used by fire managers to improve the success of dailymanagement activities. II


Table I-NDFR-Th and ADJ·Th modeled fue! moisture predicted hy using weather variables as shown: diameter reduction and percentage of consump-non are calculated with ADJ-Th

Temperature Percent PercentDiameter

Percent

Date(OF) humidity

Precipitationfuel moisture

reductionconsumption

(July) Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum (hrs) NFDR-Th ADJ-Th (in) 3-9 in 9--20In(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 )

1 62 46 100 78 4 30 37 1.59 53 232 53 42 100 82 11 32 38 1.49 51 223 59 40 100 56 a 31 38 1.53 52 234 53 46 100 82 14 33 39 1.39 48 215 61 44 100 71 7 33 39 1.36 47 206 66 44 100 62 a 33 39 1.40 48 217 61 43 100 65 a 32 39 1.44 49 228 69 49 81 40 a 31 38 1.52 52 239 70 51 86 50 0 30 37 1.58 53 23

10 73 51 100 52 a 30 37 1.62 54 2411 72 50 100 49 a 29 37 1.66 56 2512 76 54 97 52 a 29 36 1.71 57 2513 58 48 100 70 1 30 37 1.62 54 2414 62 38 100 52 a 30 37 1.65 55 2415 63 39 100 51 a 29 37 1.69 56 2516 68 54 97 62 a 28 36 1.73 57 2617 74 54 76 45 0 28 36 1.80 59 2618 75 44 96 45 a 27 35 1.85 60 2719 77 56 68 43 a 26 35 1.92 62 2820 77 45 100 51 a 26 35 1.95 63 2821 66 43 100 56 0 26 34 1.98 64 2922 77 49 79 38 a 25 34 2.04 65 3023 76 53 80 45 a 24 33 2.10 66 3024 78 57 80 47 a 24 33 2.15 68 3125 79 60 85 51 0 23 33 2.20 69 32

Predicted with assumed weather variables as shown

26 75 55 100 50 a 23 32 2.23 69 3227 75 55 100 50 0 23 32 2.25 70 3228 75 55 100 50 a 23 32 2.28 70 3329 75 55 100 50 a 22 32 2.30 71 3330 75 55 100 50 a 22 32 2.32 71 3331 75 55 100 50 a 22 31 2.35 72 34

Predicted with assumed weather variables as shown

26 75 55 65 35 0 23 32 2.27 70 3327 75 55 65 35 a 22 31 2.33 72 3328 75 55 65 35 a 21 31 2.40 73 3429 75 55 65 35 0 21 30 2.46 74 3530 75 55 65 35 a 20 30 2.52 75 3631 75 55 65 35 a 20 30 2.58 77 37

1988 Volume 49, Number 4 11

Literature Cited

Deeming. John E.; Burgan. Robert E.~ Cohen.Jack D. The national fire-danger rating system-1978. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-39.Ogden. UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station; 1977. 49 p.

Little, Susan N.; Ottmar. Roger D.; Ohmann.Janet L. Predicting duff consumption fromprescribed bums on conifer clearcuts inwestern Oregon and western Washington.Res. Pap. PNW-362. Portland. OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Pacific Northwest Research Station; 1986.29 p.

Ortmar. Roger D. The evaluation and adjustment of large-fuel moisture models from thenational fire danger rating system for prescribed fire planning. University ofWashington, Sean le. WA; 1980. 126 p.M.S. thesis.

Ottmar, Roger D.; Sandberg. David V. Calculating moisture content for lOoo-hourtimelag fuels in western Washington andwestern Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-336. Portland. OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest andRange Experiment Station; 1985. 16 p.

Sandberg. D.V.; Ottmar. R.D. Slash burningand fuel consumption in the Douglas-fir subregion. In: Proceedings of Seventhconference on fire and forest meteorology.1983 April 25-28; Fort Collins. CO.Boston. MA: American MeteorologySociety; 1983: 90-93.

McClellan ReceivesGolden Smokey

Harry R. "Punky" McClellan,group leader of the Smokey and the

J Pros Program, was awarded the'Golden Smokey Award for sustained outstanding national servicein wildfire prevention. This awardis the highest fire prevention recognition that can be bestowed.

The award was presented at aNational Smokey Bear Workshop inOrlando, FL, on behalf of the Chiefby Bill McCleese, an AssistantDirector in the Fire and Aviation

.Management Staff, WashingtonOffice. It was given for Punky'soutstanding efforts and accomplishments in managing and admin

. istering the Smokey wildfire

prevention program in professionalsports. This program has takenSmokey into major league baseballstadiums throughout the UnitedStates and Canada. It has also been.the catalyst to start teaming Smokeywith other professional sports 'activities.

Punky has served in a variety offire management positions in thePacific Southwest Region of theForest Service, He is currentlydetailed to the Washington Officefrom his position as deputy firemanagement officer on the SierraNational Forest. Punky is now theproud recipient of all three Smokeyawards; he also received the Silverin 1978 and the Bronze in 1986.Congratulations! •

il

12

Harrv R. "Punkv" McClellan (left) receives Golden Smokey Award from Bill McCleese,Assistant Direc/{;r, Fire and Aviation Management. Washington. DC.


Wildland Fire Engine StandardsJ.P. Greene

Fire Resource Manager, Florida Division of Forestry.Tallahassee, FL

Within the past few months, anumber of fire and fleet managershave been asked to respond to surveys dealing with the number ofwildland fire engines in their fleetsand the specifications they want theirfire engines to meet. This shortreport attempts to provide feedbackto the survey respondents regardingthe use made of the data collected.

The majority of fire responsesmade in the United States arc towildland fires, not structural fires.Wildland fire suppression tactics arequite different from structural firetactics and, therefore, require different equipment. Vehicles used inwildland fire suppression must operate reliably under a wide variety ofextreme conditions.

The Problem

The wildland fire community, consisting of Federal, State, and localagencies, is currently encounteringsevere difficulties in obtaining vehicles that perform satisfactorily in thisadverse environment. The presentwildland fire fleet is conservativelyestimated to number 25,000 trucks.Problems encountered includeunavailability of all-wheel drive incertain size classes, inadequate suspension systems, and overloadedelectrical systems. These problemswere identified as early as 1973 bythe General Services Administrationsponsored National Fire EquipmentConference and were reaffirmed bythat group in 1985.

Under the auspices of the NationalWildfire Coordinating Group--aninteragency advisory body-a wildland fire engine study committee was


formed to seek remedies to these performance problems. Composed ofFederal and State representatives, thiscommittee first convened at the BoiseInteragency Fire Center in the summer of 1986. At that meeting, adecision was made to develop Federal specifications or a standard forwildland fire engine cab and chassisunits that could be used by all agencies, including State and localorganizations. These specifications, itwas decided, would be tailored to thespecial needs of the wildland firecommunity and would, in essence,consolidate the agencies' purchasingpower.

Information Gathering

Before the development of thesespecifications, both quantitative andqualitative data were required tojudge agencies' market size and specific truck needs. To this end, twosurveys were made: One to fleetmanagers to ascertain the number ofvehicles in use and the other at across-section of users and managersto determine performance needs.

The survey of 64 fleet managersrevealed an engine population amongthe Federal and State agencies ofsome 7,800 vehicles. This is a veryconservative number. The survey didnot include the largest segment of thewildfire fleet-the 20,000 rural andmunicipal fire departments. The totalfleet of wildland engines is estimatedto be 25,000 to 30,000.

The number of wildland fireengine cab and chassis units purchased each year probably does notprovide sufficient incentive to amajor manufacturer to build a custom

product. A united purchasing frontby agencies and local fire departments, however. may well influencethe availability of certain options andprovide the final impetus for somemanufacturers to make changes totheir engines.

The Results

The users' survey generally confirmed the group's guess regardingspecification preferences. The L166respondents highlighted such problems as the lack of all-wheel driveavailability, weak suspensions, inadequate braking, low ground clearance.insufficient fuel capacity, ami poorcooling.

The survey results were summarized in a report presented torepresentatives of the major truckmanufacturers at a meeting conductedby the General Services Administration in Washington in mid-June. Atthe meeting, the operating environment of the wildland fire engine wasdiscussed in some detail to give themanufacturers an idea of the extremeconditions under which their equipment is required to function. Problemareas and the desires of the engineusers were also reported. Finally.estimates of potential market numbers were provided. based upon thefleet managers' survey. The manufacturers were asked to provide theirreactions to the report and discussionby late summer. The group will meetagain in late 1988 to begin work on apurchasing standard. which will. it ishoped, be available for use in fiscalyear 1989.•

13

Communications Cooperation: WildlandFire Agencies in the NorthwestEmilio R. Sibayan

Communications specialist. Oregon Stale Department of Forestry, Salem, OR

After countless hours devoted toplanning meetings that spanned manyyears, not to mention the numerousmemorandums that were sentbetween committees and workinggroups, the Pacific Northwest FireInteragency Coordination Group(PNIFCG) finally adopted the Northwest Incident Command System(NICS) organizational guidelines oncommunications planning. Perseverance and hard work by thegroup members paid off. Their laborculminated in a communications planput to use in the 1988 fire season.

Background

In the early part of 1984, theBureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),Bureau of Land Management (BLM),Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),and National Park Service (NPS) ofthe U. S Department of the Interiorand the Forest Service (FS) of theU.S. Department of Agriculture,together with the Oregon StateDepartment of Forestry (OSDF) andthe Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) becamesignatory agencies to a Memorandumof Understanding. This group ofagencies, thereafter known as thePacific Northwest Interagency FireCoordination Group, defined theneed to establish a platform foragreement or a common understanding among themselves. Theparticipants to this agreement arewild-land natural resource management agencies with the firemanagement responsibilities in autonomous jurisdictions and in thosewhere one agency's responsibility

14

overlaps with another's. The groupsaw the need to maintain ongoingclose awareness, coordination, andexchange of new technology, concepts, and organizational changes andprocedures.

The 1984 Points of Agreement

The points of agreement fromwhich the signatories worked andcontinue to work to implementNJCS, part of the National Jnteragency Incident Management System(NllMS), and the timeframe withinwhich some of those goals were tobe accomplished are as follows:

• Define what fuJI NllMS implementation is and ensure that itprovides a framework on whichinteragency wildfire suppressioncooperation can be maintainedand improved.

• Initially, focus the interagencyeffort on wildland and fire suppression based on current (1984)level of cooperation.

• Accept participating agencystandards on such matters asequipment, training, and physical fitness by March 1986.

• By March 1986, agree to trainprimary firefighters and overhead in basic Incident CommandSystem (lCS).

• By March 1986, move projectfires on Federal lands and thosefires which are primarily Federalmultijurisdictional under lCS.

• Inform agency managementregarding implementation ofNllMS through organizationaltraining and seminars formanagers.

• Carry out future training program through those agencieshaving wildland responsibility.

• Qualify an individual for a comparable ICS position on the basisof present agency qualificationwith 1-220 and transition training. Transition training isdefined as interim training that isstructured to move an individualnow serving in a fire suppressionorganization laterally to a similarposition in the JCS organization.

• By March 1986, use NllMS inBIA, BLM, NPS, and ForestService operations. (Some components of fire subsystems maynot be implemented, such asorthophoto mapping.)

• Maintain fire protection agreements according to existingestablished standards.

• Establish committees to dealwith the issue of common communications by radio andcoordination of telecommunications using teletype, computer,and so on.

Recommendations and Evolution

With those broad points of agreement, the PNFICG Steering Committee set out to form subgroups andsubcommittees responsible for establishing guidelines to implement theaccepted concept of NllMS; namely,the Operation Working Group, Training Working Group, TechnicalCommunications Review Committeewith subgroups in technical communications and radio, andNomenclature/Categories WorkingTechnical Committee.


When an incident reaches projectfire size, interagency communicationswill be dictated by the incident communications plan.

The group identified and recommended the following frequencies,agencies to whom licensed, andusage in accordance with the NICSplan:

In late 1987, the same agenciesbecame signatories to an addendumto the master Memorandum ofUnderstanding, establishing guidelines for use of the frequencies byparticipating agencies, fire equipmentrental rates, and development oftraining requirements and schedules.The full intent of the master Memorandum of Understanding wasscheduled for implementation beforethe 1987 fire season. However, forone reason or another, that wasdelayed a year. Still to be resolved isthe requirement to provide for longrange dispatching.

The impact of joint fire management operations in Oregon andWashington would be to eliminate,or at least minimize, potentialproblems and fully use availableresources. In effect, these agencieswill fulfill the primary function forwhich they were created--that ofprotecting lives and property. _

Frequency and Group168.550 MHz (BlMI

UsageInitial

ContactTacticalTacticalTactical

TacticalTactical

(OSDFI(WDNRI(Oregon FireMarshalltBlM)(FSI

150.150 MHz168.200 MHz

159.240 MHz151.415 MHz154.280 MHz

Conclusion

group carefully considered the sceneof fire, availability of frequencies,capability of some firefighting organizations, and fire size.

Each agency in the PNFICG wasto make available one of its assignedfrequencies for tactical or scene-ofaction use. Tactical or scene-ofaction frequency means that suchfrequency would be used for interagency initial attack (local) communications by all agencies on theincident. The specific tactical frequency to be used would depend onwhose jurisdiction the fire is in. Forinstance, if a fire is on as DF lands,use the OSOF tactical frequency; ifon BLM lands, use BLM's.

It would be the responsibility ofthe local incident commander tomaintain communications with dispatchers on the dispatch channel.Dispatchers would not monitor thetactical radio communicationschannels.

When an incident is attacked byonly their forces, the agency involved will use its own frequency.This frequency mayor may not bethe tactical frequency. For example,if the Forest Service responded to anincident within its jurisdiction, thefrequency used will probably be theForest Net or Project frequency .However, if another agency joins theattack, all will switch to the tacticalfrequency.

The rural fire departments, becauseof equipment capability limitations,are not expected to place all the tactical frequencies in their radios. In anincident in which rural fire departments are involved, interagencycommunication shall be on the FireMarshal tactical frequency.

The PNFICG, recognizing that asound communications system is akey element in effective fire control,addressed the need for common interagency radio frequency for initialcall-up and contact and a need for afrequency available for tactical useby all agencies responding to a multijurisdictional wildfire. PNFICGcharged the Operations Group withthe task of identifying common interagency radio frequencies. In November 1986, it agreed to recommendBLM's 168.550 MHz for use as theinitial contact (call-up) frequency.At the same time, the group discussed future undertaking to explorethe following:

• Feasibility of incorporating along-range calling channel-adispatcher's net for directing orredirecting forces enroute to anincident.

• Availability of a scene-of-actionfrequency or frequencies whichcould be used in the build-upphase of an Incident CommandSystem.

In March 1987, the Radio Working Group proposed a solution to theproblem of how to provide interagency radio communications formultiple agencies responding to ajoint initial attack on an incident. Inmaking its recommendations. the


McCall Smokejumper Base DedicationDan Dzuranin

volunteer, USDA Forest Service, McCall, lD

A portion of the crowd of 2,50() watching air show at McCa"- Smokeiumper Base dedication.

Among cheers and applause,Payette Forest Supervisor Veto J.LaSalle and McCall Mayor JohnAllen cut a ribbon June 25 to formally open the new $2.9 millionMcCall Smokejumper Complex. Thecomplex is located in the Intcrrnountain Region (Region 4) on thePayette National Forest in McCall,ID.

A crowd of about 2,500 people listened to speeches and then watchedan impressive aerial demonstration ofhow smokejumpers and aircraft areused to suppress a fire. Following theceremony, the public viewed 15 displays and toured aircraft and the newbase. The dedication continued onSunday, June 26, with an open housefeaturing exhibits on all aspects offire suppression and fire safety--evenfood bags used for initial attack.

The reactions from the crowd wereextremely enthusiastic. Forest Serviceemployees working at the exhibitsunanimously reported several compliments about the dedication and thework of the smokejumpers.

In conjunction with the dedicationceremony, a reunion for thosesmokejumpers who served in McCallwas held June 24 to 26. More than200 active and retired smokejumpersswapped fire stories to celebratethe 45 years of smokejumping inMcCall. It was the first smokejumperreunion since McCall became a basein 1943.

LaSalle was the dedication's master of ceremonies. Guest speakersincluded Mayor John Allen; PatSullivan, Idaho Executive Assistantfor Senator James McClure; GeorgeLeonard, Associate Chief of the Forest Service; Al West, Deputy Chief

16

of State and Private Forestry; andStan Tixicr, Regional Forester for theIntermountain Region, Special guestsincluded Mic Amicarella , Washington Office Director of Fire andAviation Management and DougBird. Intermountain Region Directorof Fire and Aviation Management.

In honor of their service in firemanagement. plaques were awardedto 15 people. Three people weregiven awards for being firsts in Forest Service history. Earl Cooleyreceived an award for making thefirst fire jump in 1940. DeanneSchulman was honored for being thefirst woman smokejumper, andCharlotte Larson received a plaquefor being the first woman smokejumper pilot.

Plaques were also awarded toseven current and former fire branchchiefs for the Payette National Forestand to five McCall SmokejumperUnit Managers who now fill or previously filled that role.

A I-hour aerial demonstrationbegan after the speeches were givenand the ribbon was cut. A brush pileat the McCall airport was ignited andthe "fire bell" sounded. Six smokejumpers ran out of the loft, put ontheir jump gear, and loaded a DC-3.After dropping streamers, they parachuted from the plane to the delightof the large crowd, Paracargo wasthen dropped from the DC-3. Then ahelicopter with a water bucketdropped two loads of water on theburning pile. After the water drop theBeech Baron lead plane led aPB4Y-2 airtanker, which dropped aload, mostly of water, over the fire.The helicopter returned to retrievesmokejumper gear by means of along line. A Twin Otter completedthe air demonstration by showing itsability to take off and land in a shortdistance.

Several people in the audiencecommented after the air demonstration that they had frequently seen the


Deanne Schulman, first woman smokejumper,at net\' McCaff Smokejumper facility.

airplanes leave and return, but nowthey better understood what happenedwhile the aircraft were gone.

The new complex marks the firsttime the smokejumper facilities havebeen located at the airport. Since1943, the McCall base was 'locatedthree-quarters of a mile from the airport. The dispatch office, tankerbase, and smokejurnper ready roomwere at different areas around theairport.

The complex includes a new paraloft, airtanker base, off-site housingwith barracks for 40 single jumpers,and 8 modular homes which canhouse 10 married jumpers and theirfamilies.

The paraloft has a storage and firepack assembly area, ready room, a40-foot-high drying and inspectingtower, sewing room, rigging room,


first aid and whirlpool room, weightroom, 80~person classroom, conference room, and administrativeoffices.

The Forest Dispatch Office, whichis on the second floor of the mainbuilding, overlooks the new 2,200foot parallel taxiway, a large ramparea for smokejumper, airtanker, andleadplane aircraft parking and helibase. Also included in the facility isa mixmastcrs office, tanker pilots'ready room, and aircraft maintenancebuilding.

The complex is located on 20acres along the west side of the MeCall Airport. The site for the basewas acquired in a State landexchange in 1985.

The building was designed by Forest Service architects Bruce Crockettof McCall and Wilden Moffitt ofOgden, UT. The Russell Corporation, based in Boise, began construction in 1986 and completedwork in November 1987. A total of23 subcontractors worked on theproject. The McCall city administrators were also very helpful inassisting the project through itscompletion.

Native building materials wereused to fit the decor of the local areaand to give the large structure an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The17,000-square-foot building has acedar shake roof, cedar siding, and abase of native rock from the SalmonRiver.

During the remainder of this year,more than 2,000 people are expectedto visit the newest smokejumpercomplex in the National Forest System. The base is noted in the latestRand-McNally atlas. -

Animal Inns (There's Lifeiin Dead Trees!)

A national public education cam.paign to create awareness about the.importance of dead trees anddowned logs for wildlife habitatwill he formally kicked-off nextspring. Dubbed the "Animal Inn"

'program, the Forest Servicesponsored campaign is designed to

,improve understanding of the'habitat needs of cavity-nestingbirds and animals. First target willbe firewood cutters and others whodirectly affect this resource. Themessage is not aimed at stoppingthe cutting and removal of thismaterial, but rather at recognizingand saving those trees that have

.particular wildlife values.Other Federal and State resource

management agencies, as well as:conservation groups and interested'commercial organizations, will bejoining in support of the program,

, which has been developed from a! successful local cooperative venture 1

initiated in central Oregon in 1986by the Deschutes National Forest

, and the State Department of Fish, and Wildlife. A variety of media, will be used to launch the cam-: paign, with materials distributed to, Forest Service offices and coopera.tors in the early spring. -

~\\ )\

17

-------- - - -

Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks1

Linda Knowlton

Systems manager, USDA Forest Service, Fire andAviation Management, Washington, DC

A Data General workstation on the Red Owl Fire in /984, Flathead National Forest. Use of theData General at this fire marked us first use at a fire camp.

In the Beginning

Given the innovative approaches tofire suppression that the fire management community is well known for,it is not surprising that computersshould have worked their way intothe firefighter's toolkit. One of thefirst attempts by the USDA ForestService to put computer technologyin fire camps was in its PacificSouthwest Region (Region 5) in thelate 1970's. The concept of usingdumb terminals communicating to theFIRESCOPE computer proved towork well; but the initiative did nottake hold for various reasons--costand availability of hardware and software, among others.

Several years later the Forest Service was in the midst of installingData General (DG) minicomputersystems at all its offices, from theChief's to the Ranger District's.And, always on the lookout for abetter way to do a job (in this case,process information), some fire management people had a bright idea.The story goes that late one night,during a major fire bust in August1984, some folks from the Region Ioffice in Missoula, MT, were looking for a better way of tracking theresource status and situation statuscreated by the 17 large fires underway. Someone suggested puttingtogether some DG workstations andusing them to communicate to a host

"Ihc author would like to {hank the followingpeople for helping with this article: Mike Calvin. computer specialist, Region 6; TroyKurth. fire planning and program officer,Region I ~ Howard Nickelson, computer specialist. Region 5; and Steve Simon. computerprogrammer/analyst, Region l .

computer. A short time and a lot ofwork later, it was done. Region Ifirst used these "fire camp computerkits" in 1984 at an interagency incident on the Flathead National Forestand Glacier National Park, The useof the computer provided accurateinformation on deployed resourcesand allowed for adjusting resourcesto fit suppression priorities.

The computer kits typically havethree workstations and a printer.Because the DG workstations are notintelligent, they must communicateback to a host DG processor using amodem, phone lines, and a multiplexer (a device that allows separatetransmissions over the same line atthe same time).

And Then ThereWere Micros

Microcomputers also began toshow up in fire camps, especially in

the Pacific Southwest and PacificNorthwest Regions (Regions 5 and6). The micros used Lotus 1-2-3,DBase III, and RBase software toperform functions like cost accounting, cost apportionment, resourcestatus keeping, and shift assignments.Everybody was doing something alittle different; but, to the extent thatthe needs of the incident were beingmet, it was all of value. Most of all,it became clear that computers couldplaya valuable role in incidentmanagement.

The Fire Management ActivityReview of the 1985 fire seasonrecommended an expansion andimprovement in the use of data processing and communications for firesuppression. An example of the valueof this technology was demonstratedthe next summer at the EnterpriseArea Command in northeasternOregon. The area command team

18 Fire Management Notes

-,

A DllCK ln use on the 1987 Silver Fire, Siskiyou National Forest.

estimates savings there of $1.5 million because better informationallowed sharing of forces betweenincidents and demobilization offorces in a timely manner. Thecomputer-generated data tables alsoserved other functions, such asscheduling rest and relaxation daysfor fire crews and demobilization ofcrews based on length of time in thefield. The electronic mail capabilityprovided for faster and more accuratetransmission of messages over a single telephone line than the traditionalvoice method.

By 1987, Region 6 decided tofield some computer kits, too. Thisadded four more kits to the six available for dispatch from Region I.Region I sent all of its kits to California in 1987 and chalked up evenmore impressive statistics in time andmoney saved. The performance ofthe new Region 6 systems also was

1988 Volume 49. Number 4

far better than expected for their firstyear of operation.

We're All in This Together

At the end of the 1987 season,several things were clear. First, computers had proved their worth andwere in the fire camp to stay. Second, it would benefit everyone tohave standard software, 'procedures,and training to make full use of thecomputer kits. And, third, if California ever had a fire season again likethe one in 1987, it had better be prepared with some computer equipmentof its own.

Accordingly, in the fall of 1987,Regions I, 5. and 6 agreed to combine their efforts in time for the 1988season. The three regions agreedto a set of standard data elements,like request number and resourceassigned, to be reported in a standardformat, from the incident throughBoise Interagency Fire Center. Theyagreed to standardize the hardware inthe computer kits as much as possible and to use common terminologywhen referring to all the hardware,software, and personnel involved.Joint training sessions have beenheld. While all of this sounds veryreasonable and simple, it represents alot of work and the overcoming of allthe usual NIH (not-invented-here)feelings.

Region 5 is in the process of putting together 10 computer kits for usein 1988. Region 8 also has a kit.making a total of 21 available ForestService-wide. Applications that willbe supported are: Word processing,electronic mail, AFFIRMS/Telemailaccess, Incident Resource Status

System (lRSS). BEHAVE, anddata management tools. Many otherapplications are in the planningstage.

Meanwhile, Back in Washington

Meanwhile, back in Washington,the Forest Service and the U.S.Department of the Interior Bureauof Land Management (BLM) andother National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) memberswere working on a project, calledINCINET, to standardize equipment,software, and communications foruse in the interagency arena. TheBLM had been using computers andsatellites on fires, too," as had several States, and there was generalagreement that computer support forfire suppression should be part of theIncident Command System. A benefit/cost analysis showed that thegreatest benefit could be gained byusing networked, informationsharing processors at the incidentsite, linked to agencywide communications systems.

This summer the INCINET concept will be tested by two differenttypes of systems, one a networkedmicrocomputer system, the other asmall minicomputer. The performanee of both systems will be evaluated, and a decision made on howto proceed for further testing in1989. The INCINET plan calls forprocurement of equipment anddevelopment of software to takeplace from 1990 through 1993.

"Wiklund, Natalie. Computers and satellites onfires. Fire Management NOles. 48(4) 15-16;1987.

19

INCINET minicomputer being used on the Centrella Fire in 1988, Coronado National Forest. TheData General MV 1400 is under the printer on the table at the right.

case to the tools needed to set itup.

FIS-Fire Information System. Former name of the system used inRegion I.

Host site-The Data General minicomputer, usually at a ForestSupervisor's office, that acts ashost, via a communications link,to the terminals being used at theincident site.

INCINET-Incident Network. Theinteragency project to standardizethe hardware, software, and communications to be used for incidentsupport. Prototype testing in 1988and 1989.

InSysT-Incident Systems and Telecommunications. The overallsystem of automation and datacommunications used by RegionsI, 5, and 6 to support incidentsbeginning in 1988.•

There isn't much question nowabout the value and effectiveness oftaking the power of the computerinto fire camp. In fact, the NWCGthis year commissioned a study todetermine position descriptions, jobperformance requirements, and thebest place in the Incident CommandSystem to locate the technicalspecial ist in charge of the fire's computer support. It won't be longbefore computers are as common asupport item as radios-and as necessary as showers.

Glossary

Computer people are often accusedof using "jargon" to confuse orimpress others. This glossary should

20

help to clarify some of the computerterms used in incident support.

CAIM-Computer Applications inIncident Management. Formername of the system used in Region6.

CTS-Computer Technical Specialist: Title of the InSysT person whoworks for the CommunicationsUnit Leader and sets up and maintains the DaCK.

DaCK-Data Communications Kit.The hardware component ofRegions I, 5, and 6 computer support system used beginning inI'lRR. Each DaCK can support I to6 terminals and I to 2 printers. ADaCK costs about $8,500, including everything from the packing

Correction

In the article entitled "Correcting an Error in the HP-71 B Fire

• Behavior CROM" (Fire Management Notes. 49(2) 31), a change

•should be made to the line begin· ning with the characters 80 in, column 3. The line should read:! 80 M (1)=M (I)+OI@

M (4)=M (4)-01· This correction deletes a character, the third equals sign, aspublished. "


Fuels Treatment Assessment-1985Fire Season in Region 8George G. Martin

Fuels management group leader. USDA Forest Service,. Region 8, Atlanta, GA

"

I•/.

In 1986, Region 8 of the USDAForest Service developed an assessment with the best available data toevaluate the effects of fuels treatmentupon wildfire intensity, size, suppression cost, and damage. The analysiswas based upon fire occurrence during the severe 1985 fire season in theSoutheast.

The assessment was conducted inthat portion of Region 8 in whichfuels treatment prescribed burning is,and has been, traditionally practiced-the Coastal Plains andportions of the Piedmont. TheNational Forests in Texas, Louisiana,Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, SouthCarolina, and portions of Georgiaand North Carolina were included.The assessment area encompassedapproximately 4,9 million acres (2million hal of the Southern Region's12.5 million acres (5 million hal, Atotal of 576,522 acres (233,410 halof this area had received fuels treatment prescribed burns during fiscalyears 1983 through 1985.

The Process

The National Forests were asked tolist the names and acreages of wildfires that occurred during the 1985fire season. Since fuels treatmentover the previous 3-year period(1983-85) would have an effect onthe behavior of wildfires in 1985, theforests were asked to report whetherthe wildfires occurred in the following areas:

• An area that had been burned byprescribed fire in the past 3-yearperiod.

• An area that had not beenburned by prescribed fire during


the past 3 years but was eligiblefor prescribed burning if fundingand manpower were available.

• An area that had not beenburned by prescribed fire andwas ineligible for prescribedburning because of environmental or natural resource or otherconsideration.

Individuals intimately familiar withthe individual wildfires responded. Ifthe specific area of occurrence wasnot well defined, that is, if wildfiresburned in areas prescribed for burning which had been burned and thosethat had not been burned, Forest staffmembers provided narrative explanations of each area category orfollow up by telephone to insure thewildfire was appropriately classified.

The assessment dealt only withfuels treatment prescribed burningand fuels treatment dollars. The Forests were not asked to specificallyidentify fuels treatment prescribedburning areas in the assessment. It isrecognized that at least a portion ofthe wildfires may have been affectedby prescribed burns funded fromother sources; however, discussionswith the involved Forests indicatedthese would have had little effectupon the results.

The assessment compared datarelated to wildfires that occurred inareas that had been burned by prescription with data related towildfires which occurred in unburnedareas that were eligible for prescribedburning if funding and manpowerhad been available. While some comparisons were made with thosewildfires which occurred in areasineligible for prescribed burning, theassumption was, of course, that with-

out a prescribed fire option, the sizeof wildfire and the cost of suppression in these areas could not bealtered .

The Results

Fire Occurrence. A total of 935wildfires occurred in the assessmentarea during the 1985 fire season. Ofthese, 282 (30%) occurred in areasthat had been burned by prescriptionin the previous 3-ycar period, while317 (34%) occurred in areas thatwere eligible to burn but had notbeen burned because of budget ormanpower constraints. The balance.336 (36%), occurred in areas ineligible for prescribed burning becauseof resource constraints (table I).

The effect that prescribed burninghad upon fire occurrence (number offires) is, at best, speculative. Whilethe Region 8 assessment madeassumptions and included occurrencedata, the discussion and results arenot included here.

Size and Intensity. An analysis ofthe wildfire sizes in areas burned byprescription and unburned areaseligible to bum provided the mostsignificant indicator of the effects ofprescribed burning upon wildfires

. during the 1985 fire season.

21

Table l~The /985 fire season-wildfire statistics for three categories of area prescribed for burning

Area burned byprescribed fire Unburned eligible area Unburned ineligible area

Forest Number Number Number I

Administrative of Acreage of Acreage of Acreage

Unit fires Total Average fires Total Average fires Total Average

Alabama 33 1,096.6 33.2 49 2,277.05 46.5 44 461 10.5Kisatchie 22 296.2 13.5 32 174 5.4 22 162.8 7.4Texas 6 21.3 3.6 40 243.2 6.1 17 203.8 11.9Mississippi 90 1,699.85 18.9 99 2,044.1 20.6 29 294 10Francis Marion andSumter 87 1,161 13.4 31 818.5 26.4 57 4,419.05 77.5Florida 38 1,540.90 40.6 38 8,255.5 217.25 115 5,463.8 47.5Chattahoochee andOconee 3 1.75 0.6 11 25.25 2.3 41 978.75 23.19North Carolina 3 75.75 25.25 17 5,940.9 349.5 11 247.45 22.5

Total 282 5,893.4 20.9 317 19,778.5 62.39 336 12,230.05 36.4

Wildfires burned 37,902.55 acres(15,345 hal in the assessment areaduring the 1985 fire season. Of thetotal acreage burned, 5,893.4 acres(2,386 hal (16%) were in prescribedburned areas and 19,778.5 acres(8,007 hal (52%) were in unburnedareas eligible for prescribed burntreatment (the remaining 32%, inareas ineligible for prescribedburning).

Table 2-Average size (acres) oj wildfires by size classes A through E

Class A Class B Class C Class 0 Class E(D-1 (1-10 (1D-l00 (10D-300 (300 acres

Area Category acre) acres) acres) acres) or more)

Area burned byprescribed fire 0.7 4.55 34.3 150.2 1,028.5

Area unburnedby prescribedfire (eligibleand ineligible) 0.55 4.67 32.9 191.8 2,231.1

Large Fires. It becomes apparentfrom the acreage data that the significant effect of prescribed burning ismost pronounced in large wildfires.A comparison by wildfire size classof areas burned by prescription andunburned prescribed fire areas actually revealed slightly larger averagewildfire sizes in the burned areas forClasses A, B, and C than in theunburned. However, for Classes Dand E and larger fires, the effects ofprescribed burning become pronounced in that smaller acreages areburned (table 2). Comparisons ofClass E and larger fires are discussedseparately in the following section.

22

During the 1985 fire season, 12wildfires, Class E and larger,occurred in the areas of Region 8 inwhich prescribed burning is a prominent practice. Only two of these(17%) occurred in areas that hadbeen burned by prescription duringthe previous 3-year period. In addition, while these large fires burned atotal of 24,368 acres (9,866 hal, only2,057 acres (833 hal (8.5%) burnedin areas that had been previouslyburned by prescribed fire. The majority of the large-fire acreage burned,15,021 acres (6,081 hal (61.6%),occurred in areas that were eligiblefor prescribed burning but had not

been burned during the previous3-year period (table 3).

It is significant that 91. 5 percentof the acres burned in large wildfiresoccurred in areas that had not beenburned by prescribed fire in the previous 3-year period.

Prescribed Burning Benefits

Those fires that occurred in areasthat had been burned by prescribedfire during the previous 3-year periodaveraged 20.9 acres (8.46 hal insize, while those occurring in eligibleunburned areas averaged 62.39 acres(25.26 hal, a difference of 39.49


The Mud Lake Fire occurred in an area ineligible for prescribed burn. This wildfire reached 920acres (372.5 ha) because of heavy fuel loading.

acres (16 hal. On all national forestswithin the assessment area except theKisatchie National Forest in Louisiana, wildfire average size wasgreater in the areas that were notburned by prescribed fire. Althoughit is understood that this result maybe affected by numerous variables, itcan be inferred that prescribed burning significantly reduced the averagesize of wildfires in the assessmentarea.

Although no specific data was collected in this assessment regardingintensity level of individual fires, apreliminary study was conducted onthe National Forests in Texas duringfiscal years 1985 and 1986 to evaluate the use of the National FireManagement Analysis System(NFMAS) for economic analysis ofthe fuels management program, Portions of this study yielded a strongpattern related to intensity levels ofwildfire occurring in areas prescribedfor burning where burning had takenplace and where it had not. Generally, fires occurring in unburnedareas behaved at intensity level 3,Based upon this data related to intensity levels, suppression and damagecosts were calculated for the wildfires that occurred in the areasburned by prescribed fire and theunburned-eligible areas, The per-acrecosts used in this calculation hadbeen developed through the NFMASfor individual national forests inRegion 8.

The application of fuels treatmentprescribed burning essentially savedmore than 11,000 acres (4,453 halfrom consumption by wildfire in the1985 fire season, In addition, prescribed burning had resulted in lower

Table 3-Wildfires occurring in areas burned lJy prescribed fire, in areas eligible for prescribedburning but where prescribed burning did not take place. and in areas ineligible for prescribed

~\burning

Prescribed-burn status Number of Average Percent of largeand area of fire acres acreage fire acreage

~I Burned by prescribed fireMiranda (AL) 680Orchid (FL) 1,377

Total 2,057 1,028.5 8.5Eligible for burning

but notburnedOakey (AL) 1,360Range (FL) 3,926Henderson (FL) 4,040Bogue Road (NC) 5,695

Total 15,021 3,755.25 61.6Ineligible for burning

Halfway Creek (SC) 403Herberta Siding (SC) 810Morris Bay (SC) 761Maupes Island (SC) 796Mud Lake (FL) 920Dean (FL) 3,600

Total 7,290 1,215 29.9

Total (unburnedarea) 22,311 2,231.1 91.5

Grandtotal 24,368

jJ 7,I,\

., '.9~1

,i


Gallberry-Palmetto rough burned by prescribed fire after 3-year fuel accumulation.

savings could be realized with expansion of treatment into additionalacreage eligible for burning. Prescribed fire also has potential forreducing wildfire threats to structures in the urban/wildland interfacewith its very real emerging fireproblems .•

intensity burning of the 5,893 acres(2,386 hal of wildfire in those areasthat had been treated. Computationsshowed that for each $1.00 expendedfor fuels treatment prescribed burning, $1.76 in suppression anddamage costs were saved.

Conclusions

The Region 8 assessment clearlydepicted the positive benefits of fuelstreatment prescribed burning in theSoutheast. The assessment. ofcourse, addresses only those benefitsto fire management and does notinclude other resource side benefits.The expansion of aerial ignition inrecent years has already resulted inreduced per-acre costs of prescribedburning and reduced risks associatedwith smoke management. Additional

24

First year following prescribed fire in Florida. Periodic prescribed fire maintains light fuel loads.Unplanned ignitions within a 3- to 5-year period result in lower suppression costs and damage.


Helicopter Foam SystemArt Trask

Helicopter program manager, California Department ofForestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA

.'

')

Background

To compare the effectiveness ofhelicopter-dropped foam-water withwater only in its fire protection program, the California Department ofForestry and Fire Protection (CDF)equipped two UH-IF helicopterswith a foam injection system. Thesystem is used in conjunction withthe 324-gallon Bambi water bucket(SEI Industries, Inc., Model No.2732).

Results

During the 1987 fire season, thetwo foam system-equipped helicopters dropped approximately 600,000gallons of foam. In addition, severalcommercial "call-when-needed"helicopters dropped similar amountsof foam. The effectiveness of foamin test studies and firefighting programs has been reasonably welldocumented in other publications andarticles. The following summarizesCDF's experience:

• Foam with water can be up tothree times more effective thanwater alone, particularly duringmop-up operations.

• Except for unusual situations,the ratio of foam concentrate towater was gradually reduced toapproximately 50 percent ofmanufacturer's recommendationwith no apparent loss in effectiveness. The average ratio offoam concentrate to water wasapproximately I to 2 pints per300 gallons of water.

• In tests for water pollution fromthe foam, the CDF analyzedwater samples from two small


"livestock ponds" where twofoam-equipped helicopters haddipped considerable amounts ofwater. A thorough analysis, following EPA specifications,revealed no significant findings.

• The possibility of corrosion, particularly in the helicoptertailboom area, which containsmagnesium. was a prime concern. The CDF protocolcovering the use of foamrequires a thorough water rinseat the conclusion of each day'sflight activity. In some cases,the crew reported spillage orleakage of foam concentrationsolution from the externallymounted tank and pump area.Rotorwash then spread the solution along the tailboom. Anextensive postseason inspectionof both helicopters used in thefoam operation, includingremoval of the tailboom,

Fifteen-gallon foam tank.

revealed no evidence of corrosion. The CDF will, however,closely monitor for any sign ofcorrosive side effects.

System Design

The foam system is simple indesign, consisting of the fol1owing:

• An externally mounted, IS-gallon storage tank attached to theattaching points located on theleft side of the helicopter fuselage. (Some operators haveelected to mount the tank internally; however, we did not wantto compromise crew or cabinspace and, therefore, mountedthe tank externally.)

• A 28-volt pump (Shurflo, ModelNo. 2173 or equivalent).

• An anti-siphon, 28-volt shutoffsolenoid (may not be requireddepending on type of pumpused).

25

Foam tank externally mounted on helicopter.

Problems and Future

Overall, the foam injection systemworked very well. One relay failedand required replacement. The antisiphon solenoids were added to prevent static "run through" of thepump. Until these solenoids wereadded, excessive foam was consumed, and there was increased foamresidue left on the surface of thepond when the bucket was filled.

Due to the program's success, theCDF is in the process of equippingthe remaining UH-I F fleet with foamsystems.

Foam components can be obtainedfrom Crew Concepts, Inc., 3815Rickenbacker Street, Boise, ID83705 (208-344-4691); Egor FireSystems, 2566 Christian Lane, Redding, CA 96002 (916-223-3598); andmost recreational vehicle parts

stores. -

•

.',

• A 28-volt relay.• A control panel and timer unit

mounted on instrument pedestal.• Sufficient 'Is-inch garden hose to

run down shroud lines into theBambi bucket approximately 1foot below water level.

• Slipjoint hose fitting foremergency breakaway.

Operation

The operation of the system is assimple as the design. When thebucket is full and clear of the watersource, the pilot activates the foamunit by pushing a control panel button that starts the pump sequence.

26

Since the operating duration of thepump determines the mixture ratio, atimer unit that can be adjusted by thepilot has been built into the controlhead. Mixture adjustments are madewithin "seconds" of the start of thepump operation.

To insure thorough mixing, somecommercial operators are using a circulation pump mounted in the Bambibucket (similar to an electric trollingmotor used for fishing). The CDFexperience, however, has shown thefoam and water mix very well evenwithout a circulation pump. The flexing action and drop mechanism ofthe Bambi bucket helps in the mixingprocess.

CARELESSCAMPI:RSCAUSEFIRES! ""

Of


I,

Contracted Fire DetectionServices a SavingsRod Chaffee and Francis Mohr

Respectively, fire suppression technician, LaGrande Ranger District, and assistant firemanagement officer, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Baker, OR

II'

~)

')

Contracting fire detection servicessaved the LaGrande District,Wallowa-Whitman National Forest,$19,444 in 1986 and approximately$29,750 in 1987. The LaGrande District operates a three-lookout firedetection system-two are accessibleby road (Point Prominance andJohnson Rock), and one (Mule Peak)is remote. (See fig. I regardinglocation of LaGrande District andlookouts.)

The contract calls for 75 8-hourdays of coverage-starting July I andextending through September 15-7 days per week, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. It is mandatory that lookoutservices be provided at the lookout

Point Prcminancc Lookout Tower, WallowaWhitman National Forest, Laslrande, OR.


Johnson Rock Lookout Tower, WaJlowaWhitman National Forest, LaGrande, OR.

station on days that are above a "3Low" fire danger rating, a moderaterating on the National Fire DangerRating System. However, lookoutservices may also be needed duringoff-hours or on days less than "3Low," if predicted or existing fireactivity warrants. In these cases, thecontractor needs to provide servicewithin 24 hours of being called.

The contract guarantees 40 days ofpay at the bid price for Point Prominance and Johnson Rock lookoutsand 30 days at the bid price for MulePeak. Bid prices per day, per lookoutare listed in the following tabulation:

OREGON

i'..__._..__l.\

cl c.,

l ,i

I

Figure t-s-Locauon of Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest and Fire Detection Lookoutson Latlrande Distria.

27

Benefits

The contractor also includes a perhour bid to cover overtime hoursworked.

Both 1986 and 1987 were aboveaverage fire danger years for northeastern Oregon. Actual cost for firedetection in 1986 was $12,266 andfor 1987, $15,733 (table I). Anexperience in the 1987 fire seasondramatically highlights the savingsobtained in using contract lookouts.When one of the contract lookoutshad to terminate a contract early andit was necessary for the district tohire a seasonal employee for 60 daysto finish out the fire season, it costthe district $4,200 for the 60-dayappointment, whereas the initial 45contracted days cost $1,800.

If the lookouts had been operatedin 1986 and 1987, using Forest Service employees, the cost for theseyears would have been $31,710 and$45,480, respectively (table 2).

lFifteenof the 67 daysweredays lessthanthe a-t, Fire-Danger RatedDay.2Fifteen of the 69 daysweredays lessthan ltle required 3-L Fire-Danger RatedDay.3Five of the49 dayswere daysless thanthe required 3·l Fire-Danger Rate(!Day.

LookoutPoint ProminanceJohnson RockMule Peak

/986$53.30

52.9067.45

1987$39.9550.0057.50

Table I-Actual cost/or the 1986 and 1987 fire seasons

Lookout

Point ProminanceNumberof daysat lookout

(67 days at $53.30/day)'(45 days at $39.95/day)

Numberof Forest Serviceemployee days at lookout(60 days)

Overtime hours(93.75 hr at $6.75/hr)(30 hr at $6.65/hr)

TotalJohnson Rock

Number of days at lookout(69 days at $52.90/day)'(109 days at $50.00/day)

Overtime hours(93 hr at $6.75/hr)(11 hr at $10.50/hr)

TotalMule Peak

Number of days at lookout(49 days at $67.45/day)'(60 days at $57.5O/day)

Overtime hours(51.5 hr al $9.30/hr)(21 days at $10.50/day)

TotalGrandtotal

1986

$3,571.49

632.81

4,204.30

3,650.10

627.75

4,277.85

3,305.05

478.95

3,784.0012,266.15

1987

$1,797.75

4,500.00

199.506,497.25

5,450.00

115.505,565.50

3,450.00

220.503,670.50

15,733.25

.'

•

Major benefits associated withcontracted fire detection are asfollows:

• Allows flexibility to obtaindetection assistance as requiredby weather conditions andbetter manage funds. If weatheris less than a normal fire season,a greater savings can beanticipated .

• Directly contributes to stayingwithin established personnel

ceilings. -


:.

I.:

Table l--E.stimated cost for lookout detection using Federal employees for /986 and 1987 fireseasons!I

~,

Item 1986 1987

'The 1987 fire season required the same cost items, except lookout services were necessary for approximately 35 addi·tional days.

2Seven-day coverage that allows 4 days oft every 10 days worked requires four employees. The historic length of timereqwed IOflookOUI delec!;on is aDdays /75 £II !he loo)(ouI, 5 IOfopening and closing the lookout).

Salary for 4 employees: 1 GS-4 employee per lookoutplus relief lookout for Point Prominance and JohnsonRock2

(80 days)(115 days)

Overtime hours(80 hr x 4 employees or 320 hr/$9.24)(115 hr x 4 employees or 460 hrl$9.24)

Per diem at $23/day for relief employee(32 days)(46 days)

Mileage for relief employee(100 mi/trip x 8 trips or 800 mi at .20S/mi)(100 mi/trip x 11 trips or 1,100 mi at .295/mi)

Administrative: $85.70fday for GS·7level employee(10 days)(13 days)

Supplies (propane)Unemployment

($2,500 x 4 employees)($3,600 x 4 employees)Total

$16,896.00$24,288.00

2,956.804,250.40

736.001,058.00

164.00225.50

857.001,114.10

100.00 144.00

10,000.0014,400.00

31,709.80 45,480.00

Where treesgo camping.

.)I

Standard Fire Orders

Standard Fire Orders

F -Fight fire aggressively butprovide for safety first.

I -Initiate all action based oncurrent and expected firebehavior.

R -Recognize current weatherconditions and obtain forecasts.

E -Ensure instructions are givenand understood.


o -Obtain current information onfire status.

R -Remain in communicationwith crew members, your supervisor, and adjoining forces.

D -Determine safety zones andescape routes.

E -Establish lookouts in potentially hazardous situations.

R -Retain control at all times.S -Stay alert, keep calm, think

clearly, act decisively.

How would you feelif they were careless in your house?

Please be careful in the forest.

eRemember. Only YDUcan prevent forest [ires.

29

How To Estimate Tree MortalityResulting From UnderburningElizabeth D. Reinhardt and Kevin C. Ryan

Researchforesters, USDA Forest Service, IntermountainFire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT

Prescribed burning beneath standing timber is widely used to accomplish objectives such as preparingland for reforestation, reducing fuels,improving livestock range, and modifying wildlife habitat. Such burningis usually guided by written plansthat set forth general objectives and afiring pattern to accomplish them.The plan typically specifies acceptable levels of mortality in standingtrees and describes desired firebehavior, particularly flame length.This article offers two nomograms tofacilitate effective planning and successful burning. One nomogram isintended for estimating levels of mortality for various scorch heightsamong tree species common to theNorthwest. A second nomogram isuseful for determining the flamelength that will keep tree mortalitywithin specifications. The nomograms can also be used to estimatenumbers, sizes, and species of treesto leave in a partial cut and also toidentify trees that will die and shouldbe salvaged after an unplanned fire.

How the NomogramsWere Developed

The mortality nomogram wasderived from a study of 2.356 treesfrom 43 prescribed fires in Washington. Idaho. Oregon, and Montana.Species included were both PacificCoast and Intermountain varieties ofDouglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii(Mirb) Franco), western larch (Larixoccidentalis Nutt.) , western red cedar(Thuja plicata Donn.), westernhemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.)Sarg.), Englemann spruce (Piceaengelmannii Parry), lodgepole pine

30

(Pinus contorta Doug1.) and subalpioe fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.)Nutt.). Tree height ranged from 20 to220 feet (6.1 to 67 m) and tree diameter, from 3 to 65 inches (7.6 to 165ern). Based on species, diameter atbreast height, and published equations. computed bark thicknessranged from 0.1 to 4.3 inches (0.25to 10.9 em). Crown volume scorchedwas measured visually in the fieldand ranged from 0 to 100 percent.Fuels ranged from light naturalaccumulations to moderate loggingslash. Fire behavior fuel models(Anderson 1982) included 8, II, and12. The lO-hour time lag NationalFire Danger Rating System (Deeminget al, 1977) moisture content rangedfrom 5 to 25 percent, and the 1000hour moisture content, from 11 to 30percent. Fires were conducted fromMay through October. Mortality wasmonitored for at least 2 years following the fires. Mortality on the 43individual plots ranged from 0 to 97percent. Mortality for the individualspecies ranged from 15 percent forwestern larch to 87 percent for western hemlock and Engelmann spruce.

How Fire Kills Trees

Fire kills trees in several ways:crown injury, cambium injury, androot injury. Trees of different speciesand ages vary in resistance to fireinjury. Larger trees have proportionately more foliage above lethalscorch height in a given fire. Theamount of crown injury a treereceives depends on scorch height.tree height, and crown base height.Species differ in the timing of budbreak and also in the degree to which

their buds are shielded from heat.Species with large buds and twigstend to be more resistant to fireinjury. Shallow-rooted species havegreater susceptibility to root injurythan deep-rooted species.

Fire resistance among trees of different species and sizes mainlydepends on differences in bark thickness. Large trees of thick-barkedspecies may have bark 100 times asthick as small trees of thin-barkedspecies. Field determination of barkthickness is time consuming and maybe impractical in operational situations. but bark thickness can beestimated from species and diameter.

The Model

The model assumes that differences in mortality between speciesare due only to differences in barkthickness. We used published equations to compute bark thickness fromspecies and diameter. Computedbark thickness was then used withobserved crown volume scorched(percent) to predict tree mortality.

The prediction equation generatedwas:

Pm = 1/(1 +exp(-(1.466 - 4.862 B+ 1.156 B' + 0.000535 e2)))

where Pm is the predicted probabilityof mortality, B is bark thickness ininches, and C is percentage of crownvolume scorched. For each speciesthe difference between predicted andobserved mortality was less than 15percent, except Engelmann spruce,which was 30 percent. Predictedmortality was within 20 percent ofobserved mortality for all except 5 ofthe 43 sample fires. The model has


,

i'

•

,"

1

'"

.)

il,

il

Moderate logging-slash area being prescribed burned.

Area prescribed burned, approximately 1 year ago. Note low scorch height on trees.


an underlying assumption of a fire ofaverage duration. Fires of very longduration can kill cambium througheven the thickest bark and can resultin higher than predicted mortality.Thick layers of dry duff may resultin long periods of smoldering evenafter the flame front has movedthrough the stand. Heavy concentrations of logs near trees will alsoresult in extended duration of burningand a corresponding underpredictionof mortality. Conversely, mortalitywill likely be overpredicted in light,patchy surface fires.

Mortality Nomogram

The equation was used to developthe mortality nomogram (fig. I). Thenomogram allows the manager todetermine the maximum scorchheight compatible with a chosen levelof mortality, using inputs of species,diameter, tree height, and crownratio.

The lower left quadrant of thenomogram shows diameter and barkthickness for the seven species studied. These relationships were takenfrom the literature (Ryan 1982). Theupper left quadrant shows the relationship between bark thickness,percentage crown volume scorched,and tree mortality. This is the graphical representation of the mortalityprediction equation. The curved linesare mortality contours showing probability of mortality for variouscombinations of bark thickness andcrown volume scorched.

The right side of the nomogramshows the relationship between percent crown volume scorched, crownratio (upper right quadrant), and tree

31

't'

100

.3

25 50 75Tree Length Scorched, %

o

50 1-----+-+--1---I---II----i

75 f------+---f-"o/~'_+-JL-_I

Crown Ratio

25 1------1+----.f--+I--f1-----i

100 1---I--I---I::;~jiiJ~

2.000.50 1.00 1.50BarkThickness, in

o

25 't--I-I--I-1H1-1-J'------I-Je--+---1

50

100

•

.\.',

10025 50 75

Tree Length Scorched, %

o

120 f-------+---t----+~~~

160 ,-----,----,------,-----,

Tree Height, It

'"EOl·iiiI 80 f-------+---+,t£~~h.-£::-~s:~oo

(/)

2.00

Species

WH WL,DF

1.00 1.50BarkThickness. in

0.50

LP,SF ES,Re

5

25o

20 f------\---+\.---\-1f------\.-+---1

10 1-+-+--\l-~--+------1-----j

.s

~~ 15 f--\---\-+-4-4+----+----.<is

~....

Figure I-Tree mortality nomogram for use in prescription development. Key to symbols is asfollows: LP identifies lodgepole pine; SF, subalpine fir; ES, Englemann spruce; Re, western redcedar; WH, western hemLock; WL, western larch; and DF. Douglasfir. Figure can be enlarged

on copier for field use.


l'

16126

Flame Length, ft

4o

120 1------I-------f------I--I'--+---.1'-1

Temperature, of

30 1-----+_~~5I7~+_----+_---_1

150 r-----,--------.-----,---.,----rl

.,:E 90f-------j------+--4-4-Y--.<-F----ICl·iiiIs:~o

eXc~ 60 1------I------Ft---.'-1'-1~'-__+------Io

Scorch Height Nomogram

height and average scorch height(lower right quadrant). We assumedthat tree crowns take' the form ofsymmetric parabolas and that scorchheights are uniform within a tree.

Figure 2 is a nomogram for predicting scorch height. The nomogramis based on Van Wagner's (1973)equation for predicting crown scorchheight from air temperature, windspeed, and Byram's (1959) fire/ineintensity. The relationship is shownin terms of both fireline intensity andflame length, based on Byram's(1959) relationship between the two.The figure was developed for midflame windspeeds of 5 miles per hour(8 krn/h), an average value for prescribed underbums. Higher windspeeds result in lower levels ofcrown scorch height for a givenflame length or fireline intensity. Thedifferences are small for windspeedsbetween 0 and 10 miles per hour (0and 16 km/h). Managers who areinterested in solutions for other windspeeds should refer to Van Wagner'sequation or graphical representationsby Albini (1976).

~l

.)

I,

Figure 2-Van Wagner's crown scorch height model, shown for a midflame windspeed of 5 milesper hour (8 km/h) and a range of ambient temperatures. Figure can be enlarged on copier forfield use.

unreasonable Iu expect (0 underbumwithout some mortality, so it is notpossible to select zero mortality.

Once an acceptable level of mortality has been chosen for a particularspecies, the nomogram can be used

How To Use the Nomograms

To use the mortality nomogram(fig. 3), choose an acceptable levelof mortality (e.g. 20 percent or a 0.2probability of mortality). Acceptablemortality will depend on the valueof the trees and the objectives ofthe fire. Successful underbuminginvolves choosing and staying withina reasonable level of mortality. Datafrom these fires indicate that it is

Io

I100

I500

Intensity, BTU I FTI S

I1250

I2350

I'

I~19B8 Volume 49, Number 4 33

10025 50 75Tree Length Scorched, %

o2.000.50 1.00 1.50Bark Thickness, in

o

100200;0 \010 rta Iity

100 ",:'.

Crown Ratio

•.5crown .'75 75ra-n'o/

;f;f 40%.c .coe " Crown0 50 c 50o (/)(/) Sbrehc: c;

;: ;:e e(J (J

25 25

•

loof+-tree.

10025 50 75

Tree Length Scorched, %

Tree HeighL ft

160 r----r----,---..-~---__,

120 I----+----+---jl--I-~'---~

"".J.c:'"'iij

I 80 1----I----j~...._2fI'<-+_e;...,:__..,..ce8t: I---v.....,,-;t£;....."-:;;;II"'''''F-----j

toft<;;corthYle!0n-r

2.00 0

Species

0.50 1.00 1.50Bark Thickness, in

LP,SF ES,RC WH WL,DF

20 1--+--+\-----'r+-'\--+---1

5

VF,17111

10 1-+-'\-'\1-'\'---.S

~~ 151--\--+t--\--""","is

"~f-

Figure 3-This figure illustrates the use of the mortality nomogram to set scorch height limits fora prescribed underburn in which the target leave trees are Douglas fir, 17 inches (43.2 em) indiameter at breast height, 100 feet (131 m) tall with a crown ratio 010.5, and an acceptablemortality of 20 percent.


l'

16

I2350

12

I1250

kept between 9 and 10 feet (2.7 and3 m). This value can be used in conjunction with fuel models andfire behavior predictions to developa prescription for burning (Puckett

8 "Flame Length, It q-lOf.I flavne\eV1~tY\

I500

Intensity, BTUIFTIS

I100

Temperature, OF

Io

120 f-------+-----t------I--+--F---+I

150 ,------,------,----------.---,---,.-,

If desired, continue on to figure 4,and determine the maximum allowable flame length. To keep scorchheights to 60 feet (18.2 m) on a60 OF day, flame lengths should be

Figure 4----This figure illustrates the use of the scorch height nomogram to set flame length limitsfor a prescribed underburn on a 60 OF day, in order to limit scorch height to 60 feet (18.2 m).

."-" 90.r:Cl'iiiI.r:~00(/)

c:;0

60~o 7'+.-fuJ!§ 30

co(j1

c+8 0 4

to develop a burning prescription.For example, consider a shelterwoodharvest with Douglas-fir leave treesaveraging 17 inches (43.2 em) indiameter, 100 feet (13.1 m) tall, witha crown ratio of 0.5. Entering thenomogram at the lower left atobserved tree diameter, draw a horizontal line until you intersect the.correct species line. Then tum a rightangle and draw a line straight up.'Where the line crosses the top edgeof the lower left box, bark thicknesscan be read, if desired, but it is notnecessary to do so. In this example.bark thickness of a 17-inch (43.2 em)

Douglas-fir is seen to be about 1.1inches (~.8 em). Continue the linestraight up until it intersects the target mortality rate curve (0.2). At thispoint, turn a right angle again, to theright. This time, when passing fromthe upper left to the upper rightquadrant, it is possible to read offcrown volume scorched (percent).This example shows that a little morethan 40 percent of the crown volumeof these trees may be scorched without exceeding the target mortality of20 percent. If that is all you want toknow, stop there.

To convert percentage crown volume scorched to scorch height,continue working clockwise throughthe nomogram. Make a right angleturn down intersecting the curve representing the appropriate crown ratio,and then continue down to the appropriate tree height curve. Makeanother right angle tum to the left.Read allowable scorch height (in thisexample 60 ft or 18.2 m) off the vertical axis of the lower right quadrant.This is the maximum scorch heightthat can be had and still limit themortality to the desired level.

'1'

.,


ct al. 1979; Rothermel 1983;Andrews 1986). Field crews canattempt to limit the flame length tothis level through ignition patternmodifications.

Additional Applications

In some applications of prescribedfire, tree mortality is desired. Forexample, a manager may wish toeliminate encroaching Douglas firfrom a grassland. In these situations, a nomogram can be used todetermine the minimum flame lengthsnecessary to achieve the fireobjectives.

A nomogram can also be usedearlier in the planning process, at thetime of developing the silviculturalprescription. One can determine howmany trees of each species to leavein order to achieve the desired number and species proportions after firetreatment. To do this, select a reasonable expected crown scorchheight, and for each component ofthe stand work in from both sides tofind the expected mortality level inthe upper left quadrant of the nomogram (fig. 1).

The nomogram can be used todevelop a marking guide for asalvage sale after fire injury hasoccurred. In this case, crown volumescorched can be observed; therefore,the right side of the nomogram is notneeded. Work backward through theleft half of the nomogram to find theminimum diameter for leave trees. -

36

Literatnre Cited

Albini, F.A. Estimating wildfire behavior andeffects. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-30. Ogden,UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station; 1976.92 p.

Anderson, H.E. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. Gen. Tech.Rep. INT-122. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1982. 22 p.

Andrews, P.L. BEHAVE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system-BURNsubsystem, Part I. Gen. Tech. Rep.INT~194. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainForest and Range Experiment Station; 1986.130 p.

Byram, G.M. Combustion of forest fuels. In:Davis, K.P. Forest fire: control and lise.New York: McGraw Hill; 1959. 90 p.

Deeming, LE.; Burgan, R.E.; Cohen, J.D.The National Fire-Danger Rating System1978. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-39. Ogden,UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station; 1977.63 p.

Kilgore, B.M.; Curtis, G.A. Guide to understory burning in ponderosa pine-larch-firforests in the Intermountain West. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station; 1987. 39 p.

Puckett, J.V.; Johnston, C.M.; Albini, FA.;et al. User's guide to debris prediction andhazard appraisal. Missoula, MT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Northern Region; 1979. 37 p.

Rotherrnel, R.C. How to predict the spreadand intensity of forest and range fires. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-143. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation; 1983. 161 p.

Ryan, K'C. Evaluating potential tree mortalityfrom prescribed burning. In: Baumgartner,

D.M., ed. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain. Pullman, WA:Washington State University CooperativeExtension; 1982: 167-179.

Van Wagner, C.E. Height of crown scorch inforest fires. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch 3:373-378; 1973.

Repeat after me.

Only YOU.


,

"',

(Left to right) General Jack Sheppard, U.S. Air Force; John Alderson, Administrator, GeneralServices Administration; and F. Dale Robertson, Chief, USDA Forest Service; sign agreementtransferring C-J30 aircraft /0 Forest Service.

.,

.,

Seven C-l30A Aircraft ToBe Used as Airtankers

On June 10, 1988, USDA ForestService Chief F. Dale Robertson,

.along with General Jack Sheppard:of the V.S. Air Force and Administrator John Alderson of theGeneral Services Administration,signed a property transfer for sevenLockheed C-130A aircraft. Thisagreement authorized the transfer ofthese aircraft from the V. S. AirForce to the Forest Service throughthe General Services Administration. The C-130A aircraft will beconverted to airtankers by HemetValley Flying Service for use infirefighting operations.

These aircraft will replace Fairchild C-119 aircraft. There havebeen four inflight structural failuresof C-1l9's on retardant missions inrecent years, with seven fatalities inthree of those accidents. As a followup of the last accident thatoccurred in 1987, the C-1l9 hasbeen permanently grounded as anairtanker.

The Forest Service started usingsurplus World War 11 aircraft converted to airtankers in the 1950's.As parts became hard to find andaircraft and components wore out,these aircraft were replaced, mostlywith military surplus C-1l9's,P2V's, and the DC series of 4, 6,and 7. These aircraft are starting toexperience the same problems nowthat the World War 11 aircraft hadexperienced.

In January 1985, the Forest Serv; ice identified the need to advanceinto the next generation of aircraft


for airtankers. Preferably, they wouldbe turbine powered due to the lack of130/145 fuel and have cruise speedsin the 300- to 400-knot range.

The C-130A is the first aircraftavailable through military excess thatcould meet the Forest Service'srequirements for its airtankers.Through an exchange agreement,Hemet Valley Flying Service willoperate the airtankers. Throughcontracts with many wildland firefighting agencies, Hemet Valley hasbeen providing airtankers for over 20years and currently has contracts withthe California Department of Forestryand Fire Protection.

If the C-130's are operated in thesame manner as most of the previousairtankers, the cost per gallon ofretardant delivered to a fire will bereduced.•

Fred A. Fuchs, assistant director,USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management, Washington, DC

37

Texas Big Country FirePuts ICS to the TestBill Terry

Head, Training Section. Fire Control Department,Texas Forest Service, Lufkin. TX

It was late Thursday night onMarch 10, when the call finally camefrom the courthouse in Albany, TX,a small central Texas ranching community. Since about 2 p.m., a firehad been raging out of control. Drysoutherly winds fanned the flameswith gusts near 40 miles (65 km) perhour. Relative humidity hung in thelow teens or below.

Every piece of equipment in thearea was in usc. The local countiesonly had a handful of brush trucks,and they were in need of repair.Ranchers used cattle sprayers to tryto control the flames, but the30-foot (9-m) high flames provedtoo much for the minuscule watersupplies.

After a lengthy conversation withthe county judge, the Texas ForestService Fire Control Departmenthead, Pat Ebarb, realized that thiswas a fire to be dealt with. Withinthe hour, the Fire Control OverheadTeam was on its way to the besiegedwest Texas community.

By morning, the fire would have a50-mile-wide (81-km) front. Cattle,rangeland, homes and other structures were threatened. Nothing in itspath was sacred.

Just after sunrise, the l2-memberTexas Forest Service overhead team,Mobile Command Post, as well asfirefighting equipment, rolled intoAlbany. As with any disaster, thingswere in a state of chaos. How big isthe fire, where is it located, what isin its path? All these questionsneeded answers before any actioncould be taken.

Incident Commander Joe Foximmediately held a briefing with hisstaff and local firefighters. Scouts

38

were assigned to find the location ofthe fire fronts and to determine ifAlbany or any other town was injeopardy. Before the day was out,over 200 firefighters and 70 pieces ofequipment would be working onwhat would eventually be a 300,000acre (121 ,457 -ha) fire.

This all may sound common toanyone who routinely uses the Incident Command System (lCS). Butfor the people of Texas and theTexas Forest Service, this was thefirst time ICS was to be used on afire of this magnitude. Withoutdoubt, this was a multiple commandsituation that within 2 days wouldbecome two separate complexes.

ICS Training Strategy

It was 1986, when the Texas Forest Service began its switch from theLarge Fire Organization (LFO) to thelCS. This required a number ofchanges-new terminology, definitions, forms, and procedures.Although Texas Forest Service personnel were experienced in LFO andfire tactics, this change requiredinservice training as well as extensivecooperative training for volunteer firedepartments to make the systemfunctional at all levels.

The lCS system is being acceptednationwide. Starting in California, ithas been installed by many Federaland State agencies. Through theNational Fire Academy and othertraining institutions, the system hasquickly become ingrained in all partsof the fire community.

Making the change in any organization requires both an acceptanceand installation period. The psychol-

ogy of organization dictates thatchange will come only after thosepeople who would use an item corneto accept it. This acceptance must becarefully cultivated and followedwith an installation period. Here anucleus of people learn to use theitem sufficiently to replace the old.

The Training

The Texas Forest Service had anestablished training committee tooversee the training needs within theService. By discussing the ICSwithin the committee, it was decidedto try the change. Since the TexasForest Service already had two overhead teams in place, they wouldreceive the first training.

Using the standard ICS trainingmaterials from both the Federalcourses and International Fire ServiceTraining Center (IFSTA), studentswere asked to review job descriptionsbefore attending class. Lecture wasbrief and covered job responsibilitieswithin the system and other procedures such as the use of radios,locating resources, and reportwriting.


I1'-

The course placed primary emphasis on realistic role playing. In thescenarios, attention was given tomaking situations real. No time wasspent with paper situations. Rather, asimulator in an isolated room statesthe problem. Role players, in a separate room, are exhausted and needhelp already as the students begin towork on the problem. Unable to seethe simulator or even talk directly tothe crews upon arrival, students needto know where the fire is located,what is in danger, and what actionsneed to be taken.

To keep the problems as real aspossible, the personnel are sent intounfamiliar areas by using maps. Theyneed scouts, aerial surveillance. andadditional resources that were notavailable upon arrival. The object ofthis training exercise is to make thestudents "smell the smoke." Onlyby getting them mentally and emotionally involved in the resolution ofa difficult and uncommon situationcan they learn to deal with the stressand learn to make decisions quickly.

What happened at Albany inMarch 1988 was all the right things.The trained people who respondedknew what to do because they hadalready experienced these problems.They knew what questions to ask,where to locate resources, how to setup communications, and how to formulate a plan. What came out ofthem was training-training that wasnot theoretical, but practical andmeaningful.

Perhaps you have already established ICS in your organization ormaybe it is in just the thinking stage.No matter where you arc, rememberto make the training practical. Adults


do not learn for the sake of learninglike children; they learn what theycan apply. If they are intimidated bya meaningless classroom routine,they may miss the point and thetraining is ineffective.

Tips for Building a RealisticProgram

Here are just a few ideas to bringrealism to any ICS training program:

• Use problems that are realistic,but challenging, and big inscale. One student commentedthat the Albany fire was a duplicate of some of the problemsconfronting them in simulation.

• Make the overhead team members perform all the functions oftheir job. For example, if someone is responsible for filling outthe resource locator cards, makesure that person does so.

• Have coaches in the simulationto answer questions and keepthings from breaking down. It isbetter to answer a question andtake care of a problem in thesimulation than to frustrate thestudents by letting the entireproblem deteriorate becausesome do not understand theirjobs.

• Throw all the problems ofmedia. calls from the Governor,breakdowns, lack of resources,injuries. and constant interruptions at them. It is better to dealwith those problems in practicethan to be overwheJrned during afire.

• Demand that they develop awritten plan. Even go so far asto make them copy it for dis-

tribution. This will be a realproblem out on the fireline.

• Use real radios and real communications. We have communications trailers we call"Mobile Command Posts."They are used on incidents, andwe use them for training tomake sure trainees are familiarwith them.

• Follow every simulation with acritique. Give the trainees achance to talk about their problems. Have the coaches or anumpire offer constructive suggestions, but do not let itdegenerate into a "rag chewingsession." If improvements areneeded, point them out.

• Give trainees a chance to learnby giving them two or three simulations of 3 hours each. Thisallows time for planning, organization, and problem solving.

• Schedule trainees to retrain withI-day simulations annually. Thiskeeps everyone fresh concerninghow the system works.

By now, you probably think theTexas Forest Service has the world'slargest training budget. The truth iswe have a very small training budget. For ICS training, imagination,the use of the actual forms and tools,and a realistic situation is what isrequired.

Through the Rural CommunitvFire Protection Progr-:», .l.c TexasForest Service has conducted trainingprograms in ground cover for over1,500 volunteer fire departments.Our advanced ground cover trainingis lCS training. By using a six-person training team composed of TexasForest Service overhead team mem-

39

bers, we bring the same type oftraining to the volunteers.

During the Albany incident, wefound that _those departments trainedin ICS by the Texas Forest Servicewere able to assist us effectively.Several of their personnel assistedwith overhead positions. Othersworked on divisions. Our objective,

Light Aerial Delivery System

The USDI Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA) with logistical supportfrom the USDI Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) win conduct aproof of concept project using aConair fixed-water/retardant tankfitted to the Aerospatial AS~355Fhelicopter supplied through a callwhen-needed USDI Office of Aircraft Services contract with ERAHelicopters. for the 1988 fire season. The project is a jointinteragency effort with BIA, BLM,and the USDA Forest Service.

This helicopter equipped with thelight aerial delivery system (LADS)brings a multimission capability tothe fire team in the field. The helicopter equipped with the LADS canquickly respond with helitack rappellers and then back them up withwater or foam retardant in a matterof minutes using a self-loadingdrafting system that will fill the200-gallon tank in approximately 30seconds. The tank has a segregated

40

although ambitious, is to have everydepartment in Texas well indoctrinated in ICS.

More and more people are buildinghomes where wildlands and urbanareas interface, and the rural population is expanding. More local peopleare involved in fire suppression. Thismeans that when an incident strikes,

reservoir that holds up to I hour offoam concentrate and hardware toallow onboard mixing after tankfill.

The cycle time from refill to dropand subsequent refill is minutes.Water comes from a variety ofsources such as collapsible watertanks, shallow slow-runningstreams, rivers, lakes, and, if in theurban interface, swimming pools. Ina very short time, the helicopter canbe reconfigured from the LADSmode to transport passengers andcargo. The tank is easily removed;however, passengers and cargo canbe transported with the tankinstalled. The LADS was to beinstalled on the AS-350B-I, butwhen it was unavailable theAS-355 was substituted. -

Lee Young, manager, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofIndian Affairs. National AviationProgram

everyone must be ready to act. Onlya universal system like ICS can overcome the problems and lead toorganization and ultimate control.Installing or reinforcing ICS trainingin your organization may only be amatter of making it more real .•

ONLY YOUCAN PREVENTFOREST FIRES.

r!lA Public Service of the US.D.A.Forest Service and your State Foresters.


r

Dutchess with tracking dog trainer and program manager, Arthur Cox.

.;

The Virginia Department ofForestry's Tracking DogProgram

Virginia experienced an unusuallyheavy incendiary fire problem in thespring of 1985 and again in 1986.From a regionwide discussion of theproblem, the use of a tracking dogwas identified as the most importantway to attack this problem. Manylocal governments own trackingdogs, but they are usually unavailable to the Department of Forestrydue to heavy local demand. TheState Forester fully supported theTracking Dog Program, and ArthurCox, a technician, was selected tomanage the program.

Initially, the Department of Corrections, which raises bloodhounds,was to transfer a puppy to theDepartment of Forestry. Unfortunately, the litter was so small, apuppy was unavailable for theDepartment of Forestry. However,Cox was able to obtain a 6-year-old,trained female named "Dutchess"without cost, so the Department ofForestry began the tracking dog operation in the spring of 1987.

The handler needs as much training as the dog. The handler must becommitted and dedicated to the program and must be in good physicalcondition. Certification may beobtained eventually from the NationalPolice Bloodhound Association.

Although a tracking dog is valuable in tracking a person or personson foot away from a fire scene, it isrnost valuable as a fire preventionresource. For example, in Novemberl1987. a lo-ycar-old juvenile confessed to setting a fire when he'learned that Dutchess had been dis-


patched and saw the pickup truckarrive with the dog in full view.

On April 9, 1988, Dutchess followed a 6-hour-old trail from a firescene a distance of 3 miles throughthe woods into a town, ending at adoor in an apartment complex. Twojuveniles there admitted leaving thefire burning. They further confessedto setting another fire 2 weeksearlier.

Cox was able to secure a 6-monthold puppy in late 1987. He is intensively training her for the time whenDutchess will no longer be able towork. The Department reimbursesCox for room and board for the dog.

The Department never misses anopportunity to display Dutchess andwith media exposure is letting people

know that she and Cox are available and ready for dispatch onshort notice to a wildfire of suspicious origin. Early results areencouraging. -

41

: Is the Water Safe? ThinkBefore You Drink

A Hidden Hazard. There isnothing like a cool drink from a

, clear mountain stream. But is it asgood as you think it is? A hidden

, hazard you should know about is a! disease that may be contracted from

. , drinking untreated "natural" water., The disease is an intestinal disorder: called giardiasis (gee-at-dye-a-sis).i It can cause you severe discomfort., The disease is caused by a micro-, scopic organism, Giardia lamblia.

The cystic form of Giardia may befound in mountain streams and

: lakes. These natural waters may be, clear. cold, and free-running; theyI may look, smell, and taste good.~ You may also see wildlife drinking; without hesitation from theseI sources. All of these indicators· sometimes lead people to mis

takenly assume that natural watersare always safe to drink, Unfor-

: tunately, that may not be true.The Disease Symptoms and

, Treatment. After ingestion, Giar, dia normally attach themselves to· the small intestine. Disease symp! toms usually include diarrhea,, increased gas, loss of appetite,· abdominal cramps, and bloating., Weight loss may occur from nausea

and loss of appetite. These discorn-, forts may first appear a few days to: a few weeks after ingestion of Giar-

dia and may last up to 6 weeks.; Most people are unaware that they: have been infected and often have, returned home before the onset of; symptoms. If not treated, the symp: toms may disappear on their own,: only to recur intermittently over a,I

42

period of many months, Other diseases can have similar symptoms,but if you have drunk untreatedwater you should suspect giardiasisand so inform your doctor.Although giardiasis can be incapacitating, with proper diagnosis,the disease is curable with medication prescribed by a physician,

Protect Yourself. You can takesteps to avoid the problem so a visit.to a doctor will not he needed. .

There are several ways for you totreat raw water to make it safe todrink. The most certain treatment to

destroy Giardia is to boil water for i

at least I minute. Boiling also willdestroy other organisms causing .waterborne disease. At high alti- .tudes, you should maintain the boil!for 3 to 5 minutes for an addedmargin of safety.

Chemical disinfectants such asiodine or chlorine tablets or dropsare not yet considered as reliable as ,heat in killing Giardia, althoughthese products work well againstmost waterborne bacteria andviruses that cause disease, Theamount of iodine or chlorine necessary to kill Giardia depends onwater temperature, pH, turbidity. ,and contact time between the chemical and the parasite. Until current I

research determines the right I,amount of chemical and duration ofconta~t time that will work againstGiardia under a variety of waterconditions, chemicals cannot be recommended for routine disinfection (of water for this organism. -

Excerpts from u.s. Department ofAgriculture Forest Service FS-3591981. '

The one thatgotaway


"

r~

Structure Fire Demonstration

The Chemeketa Community College Fire Proteetion Sehool, ineooperation with the St. Paul RuralFire Protection District, held a fire

, attack training session on a farm, outside St. Paul, OR. The purpose, was to demonstrate firefighting pro, cedure. training firemen 'for attacks

on large structures, specifically a· house and a 144,000-cubic-foot\ bam. The procedure was to make· the initial attack with wildland com: pressed air foam. The second attack, or back-up would be made withi straight water.I Compressed air foam was appliedr to the bam fire after the barn· became completely engulfed in

flame. The bam dimensions were60 by 80 by 30 feet. According tothe Iowa formula for water attack

Figure 1r--lnfensijied fire before control.

Figure l~llliljal attack 011 barn engulfedwith fire.


requirements, 1,440 gallons perminute (144,000 + 100) would berequired to extinguish this fire withconventional water methods.

The compressed air foam wasmade with a 40-cubic-foot-per-rninute air compressor mixing air with0.5 percent Silv-ex foam solution.The concentrate was injected intothe water line. Water flow as foamwas 70 to 100 gallons per minutethrough one 1.5-inch woven rubberhose. The nozzle had a 1.25-inchbore.

The attack began on the groundlevel, with applications to the upperair space, the ceiling, and the walls.Application continued to the upperloft. Exactly whar processes were

occurring is not clear. However,blackout was achieved in 50 seconds. Thus, less than 100 gallons ofwater from one 1.5-inch line wasnecessary to extinguish this fire.•

Paul M, Schlobohm, fire management specialist, U.S. Department ofthe Interior. Bureau of Land Management, Salem, OR

43

..

United StatesDepartment of Agriculture

Washington, D,C,20250

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPenalty for Private Use, $300

.....

Order P'ocess,"~ Code

*

Superintendent of Documents Subscriptions Order Form

Charge your Order.., [yts{] .....II's easy! .....

DYES, please send me the following indicated subscriptions:

___ subscription(s) to FIRE MANAGEMENT NOTES for $5,00 each per year domestic, $6,25 per year foreign

o New o Renewal

I. The total cost of my order is $ , All prices include regular domestic postage and handling and are subject to change,International customers please add 25%.

Please Type or Print

3. Please choose method of payment:

o Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents

o GPO Deposit Account ITIIIIIJ-Oo VISA, CHOICE or MasterCard Account

(Company or personal name)

(Additional address/attention line)

2. -=----,---,-::-:-c:coc:cc::-::-;-------

(Street address)

(City, State, ZIP Code)

( )(Credit card expiration date)

Thank you for your order!

(Daytime phone including area code)(Signature)

4. Mail To: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office. Washington. D,C. 20402-9371