United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Volume 52, NO.41991

FireManagementNotes .

FireManagementNotes An international quarterly periodical

devoted to forest fire management

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Volume 52, NO.41991

Contents3 The Wyoming Smokebusters-a Viable Altemative

Robert W. Akers

6 Improving a Prescribed Natural Fire Program: TheNorthern Region's Approach

Walt Tomascak

10 The Evolution of National Park Service Fire PolicyJan W. van Wagtendonk

16 New Jersey's Initial Attack Strategy: Keep the LittleOnes Small

Joseph R. Hughes

20 An Analysis of a Forest Fire Protection Survey forthe Southern United States

Mark R. Dubois and Thomas J. Straka

25

31

38

A New Ordering System for Cooperative Forest FirePrevention (Smokey Bear) Materials

TammyJ. West

Ted Putnam Honored for Fire Safety Accomplish­ments

Brenden Tu and Enid Hodes

For Exceptional Forest Fire Prevention Efforts: TheGolden, Silver, and Bronze Smokey Bear Awards

TammyJ. West

26

28

32

Texas Forest Service Calling Dozer-OneBill Terry

Evaluation of the Hanover" Firefighter in theSwamps of Southeast Georgia

Alan Dozier and Bill Fyfe

Rx for Flexibility During Budget Unrest: Contract foran Initial Action Engine

Mark Beighley

Many thanks to Donna Paananen, editor, North CentralForest Experiment Station, East Lansing, MI, and EnidHodes, editor, Public Affairs Office, Washington, DC, fortheir substantial help in editing this issue of FireManagement Notes.

Fire ManagementNotes is published by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary 01Agriculture has determined that thepublication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business requiredby law of this Department.

Subscriptions may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S, GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC 20402.

Short Features Send suggestions and articles to Chief, Forest Service (Atln: Fire Management Notes},P.O. BOK 96090, U,S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20090-6090.

U.S, Department of Agriculture programs, services, and employment are open to all onthe basis of merit, without regard to race, color, sex. religion, national origin, age, ordisability. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any U.S.Department of Agriculture-related activity should immediately contact the Secretary ofAgriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

9

15

LCES-a Key to Safety in the Wildland FireEnvironment

Paul Gleason

Metrics, Microdisks, and Fire Management NotesDoris N. Celarier

Edward R. Madigan, SecretaryU.S. Department of Agriculture

F. Dale Robertson, ChiefForest Service

L.A. Amicarella, DirectorFire and Aviation Management

Francis R. RussGeneral Manager

Doris N, cerarterEditor

Front Cover: Wyoming Smokebusters of the Wyoming HonorConservation Camp, Newcastle. WY, buitd fireline on the 1991 Dull Knifeprescribed burn in the Bighorn Mountains.

2

Disclaimer: The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for theinformation and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an officialendorsement of any product or service by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Individualauthors are responsible for the technical accuracy of the material presented in FireManagement Notes.

Fire Management Notes

The Wyoming Smokebusters­a Viable AlternativeRobert W. Akers

Conservation Camp Program manager, Wyoming State Forestry Division,Newcastle, WY

i•,

The Wyoming State ForestryDivision and the Wyoming Depart­ment of Corrections for the past 27years have combined efforts indeveloping and supporting a wildlandfirefighting handcrew manned byinmates originally from the WyomingState Penitentiary for men in Rawlins.Called "Smokebusters," these crewshave helped State, USDA ForestService, U.S. Department of theInterior Bureau of Land Managementand National Park Service, and countypersonnel with statewide fire suppres­sion efforts.

The Smokebusters handle allaspects of firefighting, from initialattack to operating engines to mop­ping up and staffing the fire campkitchen. The effort stretches back to1964, when the State's first conserva­tion camp, a mobile unit with six crewmembers, was established. Today, the50-member crew works out of theWyoming Honor Conservation Camp,a permanent camp in northeasternWyoming. It has offered a viablealternative to foresters who needed toaugment their crews and to inmateswho had no security problems andwere interested in a constructive,outdoor work detail.

A Brief History

1964-74. The State's first self­contained mobile conservation campwas established. The camp operatedon State lands and parks in the easternhalf of Wyoming. The crew-with sixinmates, a correctional officer, and aState Forestry Division work supervi­sor-worked to conserve naturalresources, giving top priority to fire

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

The Wyoming Smokebusters, aspecially trained wildlandfirefighting handcrew of inmateshelped to battle 12 fires in theWyoming area-7 of which wereinitial attack fires---<luring thesummer of 1991.

suppression. The effort continued until1974, when the camp closed becauseof a dwindling population at thepenitentiary, making support difficult.

1975-79. With no camp out ofwhich to base a crew, the penitentiaryadministration assembled firefightingcrews as they were needed. WyomingState Forestry staff transported andsupervised these crews during firesuppression efforts. These crews weregiven a l-day training session eachyear. Occasionally this training wascarried out in conjunction with localforest seasonal crew training, but mostof it came from hands-on experience.

1980-83. A second attempt wasmade to open a conservation camp.This camp was located 60 miles (96km) southeast of the State penitentiaryon the northern edge of the SnowyRange Mountains. Inmates wereinitially housed in large military squadtents. As the program progressed, thecrew used mobile homes. The 5- toIS-member crew and the correctionalofficer traveled from the Statepenitentiary to the campsite everyMonday morning, bringing enoughfood and supplies for the workweek.On Friday afternoons they returned tothe penitentiary.

The crew thinned lodgepole pinetimber stands on State lands andsalvaged and peeled posts and corral

poles, which were used by theWyoming Recreation Commission andthe Wyoming Game and Fish Depart­ment. During this period, the inmatefirefighting crew was used primarilyfor fire mopup, a decision that wasmade based on the crew's limitedtraining (I day a year) and lack ofequipment. Limited financial supportand a camp location that was unfavor­able to year-long operation resulted inthe camp's closing in late 1983.

1984-88. Penitentiary support forfirefighting continued, but trainingwas stepped up. Two Wyoming StateForestry Division employees taughtone or two classes a year for inmateswho volunteered to fight forest fires.Classes now spanned 3 days. The first2 days combined classroom instruc­tion and handline constructionpractice. The final day was devoted tostep testing. No inmates were allowedto participate on the firefightinghandcrew until they successfullypassed the step-test. Each year, 30 to50 inmates were trained for wildlandfire suppression. Crews began todevelop pride in providing a profes­sional, quality job.

1989-Present. Plans were made tofund and build a permanent conserva­tion camp. After key personnel fromthe Wyoming State Forestry Divisionand the Wyoming Department ofCorrections toured and reviewed theNevada Conservation Camp programin January 1988, the Wyoming StateLegislature allocated funds to con­struct and operate a permanentconservation camp. This camp of 50men is located in Newcastle, north­eastern Wyoming.

3

Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp at Newcastle. WY.

Corrections and ForestryCollaborate

The camp currently operates underthe following mission statement:"Wyoming Honor Conservation Campis first and foremost a part of theWyoming Department of Corrections,making its primary function to givethe more progressive inmates at theWyoming State Penitentiary anopportunity to come to the WyomingHonor Conservation Camp where theycan prepare for a respectable andproductive life in society. At the sametime, we will provide a safe environ­ment for residents, staff, and thecommunity."

Although the inmates' care and thefacility's operation are solely theresponsibility of the WyomingDepartment of Corrections, theWyoming State Forestry Division hasa vested interest in the camp andsupervises all field work and projects.These projects include work for State,city, county. and Federal agencies if it

4

is within 11/2-hours' traveltime of thecamp and does not compete withprivate enterprise.

The forestry support staff includesa program manager and four crewsupervisors. At capacity, each supervi­sor manages an eight-member crew.The same 32 residents are trained eachspring for wildland fire suppression.The other 18 residents are dividedamong kitchen, janitorial, and mainte­nance crews.

Community and State Projects

The special crew gives priority tofirefighting, but switches to forestryand conservation projects whenthey're not needed for firefightingmissions. The forestry work crewshave been widely accepted in thecommunity. During fiscal year 1991,the forestry crews completed 82projects for 16 different agencies.They worked on State land to improvetimber stands, salvage posts and

firewood, bum slash, and constructfire breaks.

At the community level, projectsincluded painting and maintenance forthe local museum and transplantingtrees for the Newcastle BeautificationCommittee, the Governor's Mansionin Cheyenne, and the Wyoming FireAcademy. The crews also provideddisaster assistance to the local airportafter a hangar was leveled by heavywinds. They pruned trees and paintedfences at the county fairgrounds andcleaned up litter at the local landfill.

When staffing at the permanentconservation camp was gettingunderway, it was decided that a morepositive title would be associated withthe inmate firefighting crew. Insteadof the traditional terms "prison crew,""can crew," or "inmate squad," thename Wyoming Smokebusters wasadopted.

On the Fireline

The Smokebusters are fullyequipped with safety and firelineequipment needed to fight wildlandfires. With the training they receive,the all-male crew is qualified as aType II handcrew as defined under theNational Wildfire Coordinating Groupstandards. Their training includes S­130 (Basic Firefighter), S-190(Introduction to Fire Behavior), S-211(Pumps and Water Use), S-212(Power Saws), Basic First Aid,Standards for Survival, and BasicHelicopter and Aircraft Safety. Whatthey learn is then reinforced throughexperience on prescribed burningprojects on State lands each spring.

The State of Wyoming pays theinmates $40-95 a month for the daily

Fire Management Notes

to fires in other States. Early in 1991.approval was granted to use theSmokebuster firefighting crew in theBlack Hills area of South Dakota.

Before going on an out-of-Statedispatch, each crew member isrequired to sign a waiver of extradi­tion before he is allowed to partici­pate. Out-of-State dispatches areoperating on a trial basis, and, ifeverything runs smoothly, plans are toexpand the procedure to any Stateadjoining Wyoming.

A Look at the RecordThe WyominR Smokebusters control spot fire on the 1991 Dull Knife prescribed burn, a combinationtraining effort and prescribedfire burning in the Bighorn Mountains, in which th~ Bu.reau ofLandManagement, Forest Service, Wyoming Forestry Division, and county volunteer firefightersparticipated.

1

project work. They also receiveadditional incentive pay ranging from60 cents to $1.50 an hour for fires,depending on their training and theirfire experience.

Since 1964, these firefightingcrews have been allowed to assist infire suppression activities inside theState of Wyoming or on boundaryfires, but they could not be dispatched

Smokebusters assisted with firesuppression efforts on 12 fires duringthe summer of 1991. Seven of themwere initial attack fires. Vern Bentley,Medicine Bow National Forest,Laramie, WY, District, Division GroupSupervisor on the Canyon Creek Fire(Cody, WY), asserts, "The Smoke­buster crew ranks with some of thebetter crews I have ever worked with.They are safe, organized, and have afantastic attitude. I am looking forwardto working with them again."

Mark Rogers, Wyoming InterregionalCrew Coordinator, was on the sameCanyon Creek Fire and says, "TheWyoming Smokebustersare a well­trained and well-supervised crew. I alwayslook forward to working with them." •

The Wyoming Smokebusters put out hot spot on 1991 Canyon Creek Fire.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 5

Improving a Prescribed Natural FireProgram: The Northern Region's ApproachWalt Tomascak

Fire use specialist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula. MT

Before the 1988 fire season, 4.8million acres (1,942,560 hal ofwilderness and nonwildemess lands inthe Northern Region were managed toallow the use of prescribed naturalfire. But in the aftermath of severefires in the Greater Yellowstone Areaand the Bob Marshall WildernessComplex in 1988, the Chief of theUSDA Forest Service put all ForestService prescribed natural fireprograms on "hold" until each fireplan allowing their use was reviewed.

These reviews were intended todetermine if all existing fire manage­ment direction was being met and tosee that any new direction resultingfrom the "Final Report on FireManagement Policy," conducted bythe Secretaries of the U.S. Depart­ments of Agriculture and the Interior,was incorporated.

The Northern Region's prescribednatural fire program had been one ofthe most active in the USDA ForestService-378 prescribed natural firestreating over 180,000 acres (72,846hal between 1972 and 1988. Duringthat period, nine fires had to beclassed as wildfires after someelement of the prescription had beenexceeded. Eight of those fires hadrelatively insignificant impacts. Butone, the 1988 Canyon Creek Fire inMontana, was very significant,resulting in a large amount of burnedacreage outside the area designated forprescribed natural fire.

Impetus for Improvement

Prescribed natural fires are in­tended to replicate what wouldnormally take place in nature. Theseverity of the 1988 fire season,

6

however, prompted a reevaluation ofthe practice and a quest for betterprocedures.

The lessons learned during the\988 season resulted in a major effortto improve the prescribed natural fireprogram at the national, regional, andforest levels. Highlighted here are themost important changes undertaken bythe Northern Region.

Before 1988, a forest supervisor ordistrict ranger had a very short time inwhich to make a fire managementdecision that was mandated to remainin effect for as long as 60 to 70 days.Some basic information was collectedin an incident plan, but there was noformal procedure to document the lineofficer's approval of the plan. If adecision had to be reversed later and aprescribed natural fire declared awildfire, a stigma of failure wasassociated with the fire.

Since 1990, some new tools wereintroduced and new proceduresimplemented to benefit forest officerswho manage prescribed natural fires.For example, the decisionmakingprocess was broken down into twostages that can be realistically met byfield managers.

Initial Assessment Checklist. InStage I, fire conditions are evaluatedagainst some basic criteria and riskassessment factors. The evaluationmust be completed within 2 hours of afire's detection. The timeframe mustbe kept short so an ignition can beswiftly attacked, minimizing emer­gency fire suppression expenditures incase the ignition is declared a wildfire.

The field manager answers achecklist of questions to evaluate basiccriteria. Examples are:• Is the fire caused by lightning or

humans?• Is it a threat to life or property?• What is its proximity to the

boundary of the area?• What is the regional preparedness

level?• Are the drought indexes (Palmer

Drought Index, Keetch-ByramDrought Index) and the EnergyRelease Component acceptable?

• Are resources available to managethe prescribed natural fire?

• Is the air quality acceptable?• Is funding available?

When the Stage \ evaluation iscompleted, a recommendation is madeto the responsible line officer to eitherdeclare the ignition a wildfire ordeclare it a conditional prescribednatural fire and proceed with the Stage2 evaluation.

Burn Plan. The Stage 2 evaluationinvolves a team of resource managerscompleting a formal bum plan. A fewkey requirements of the bum plan are:• A delineation of the maximum

allowable perimeter (MAP). TheMAP is management's expressionof the maximum area that can beburned without unacceptableadverse effects on the wildernessresource, wilderness users, privateproperty, or private resourcesbordering the wilderness. It also isan assessment of whether the firehas gone beyond the ability of thefire manager to manage thesituation. Once the fire exceeds theMAP, it is no longer a desirableevent and must be declared awildfire.

• A projection of fire growth duringthe remainder of the fire seasongiven a nOI1TJal weather pattern anda normal end to the fire season.

Fire Management Notes

Acloseup ofa 1988 Gates Park prescribed natural fire mosaic on the Lewis and Clark NationalForest.

• A projection of fire growth duringthe remainder of the fire seasongiven a severe weather pattern anda longer than normal season.

• A holding plan that addresses theareas representing the greatestthreat to the MAP boundary and theactions needed to keep the fire frombreaching the perimeter. Provisionsto protect any special features, suchas administrative sites or inhold­ings, are included along with a costestimate for executing the entireholding plan.

• A comprehensive analysis of the ef­fects of the fire on the variousresources (including air quality)and the social and political implica­tions of the fire inside and outsidethe wilderness.

• Provisions for daily revalidationby the approving line officer. Eachprescribed natural fire must berevalidated once a day to ensure itcontinues to meet all assumptionsoutlined in the original bum plan.

• An analysis of how new fire startswithin an existing prescribednatural fire MAP will be handled.The team has up to 72 hours from

discovery of the bum to complete theburn plan preparation process. Arecommendation is then forwarded tothe appropriate line officer for adecision. If the line officer is satisfiedwith the results projected from thebum plan and the risks involved, he orshe will approve the plan. However, ifsome aspect of the plan points out arisk unacceptable to the line officer, heor she may, at that point, declare it awildfire and take the most appropriatesuppression action.

Administrative Overlaps.Prescribed fires occasionally overlap

A look at how one Forest Serviceregion improved its prescribednatural fire program.

administrative boundaries. In somecases, the MAP may involve morethan one ranger district, nationalforest, region, or even agency. Whenthat happens, all line officers respon­sible for managing the lands withinthe MAP must approve the bum plan,ensuring that coordination takes placein the early stages of a prescribednatural fire.

Funding Factors

Funding of the program is critical.The Northern Region uses a pre­scribed natural fire account adminis­tered from the regional office. The

account is made up of fire, wildlife,and wilderness dollars and stands atapproximately $100,000 for 1992.When a forest experiences a pre­scribed natural fire, the total cost ofmanagement (as projected from theburn plan) is reserved for that fire.When all funds available are commit­ted, the fund is considered depletedand subsequent ignitions are declaredwildfires unless the forest supervisorchooses to use forest funds to financethe bum plan.

Funds from the prescribed naturalfire account will not actually betransferred to the forest until they areneeded to manage the fire. Historicalrecords indicate that only one pre­scribed natural fire in three exceeds 10acres (4 hal, so most fires will notrequire spending the full amount offunds indicated in the burn plan. Thiscircumstance is not a reflection of

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 7

poor planning but is rather an indica­tion of the conservatism of the bumplan coupled with the variability ofweather and burning conditions duringthe course of the fire season.

Getting Wilderness Managers MoreInvolved

The Northern Region has empha­sized involvement of wildernessmanagers in the program. It has alsoprovided training for both wildernessmanagers and fire personnel in themanagement of prescribed naturalfires. A regional prescribed naturalfire management course has beenconducted in the Northern Regionover the past 3 years, attracting 115trainees. Interest has been strong, andseveral other regions and agencieshave sent trainees to the sessions.Also, a national-level course wasoffered in 1991 and 1992 at theNational Advanced Resource Technol­ogy Center at Marana, AZ.

Strong support from formerRegional Forester John Mummaenabled the Northem Region to getback into the prescribed natural fireprogram after the trauma of 1988. The1990 field season was the first year theprogram was reimplemented in theFrank Church-River of No ReturnWilderness, Selway BitterrootWilderness, and a portion of the BobMarshall Wilderness Complex. Thatyear, the region experienced 18prescribed natural fires and hadapproximately 650 acres (263 haltreated by prescribed natural fire. In1991, the rest of the Bob MarshallWilderness Complex rejoined theprogram. Total activity in the North­ern Region during that year was 32

8

prescribed natural fires burning over7,200 acres (2,913 hal. The AbsarokaBeartooth Wilderness in the GreaterYellowstone Area and the AnacondaPintler Wilderness are expected to beback in the program by 1993.

Putting Changes to the Test

The past two seasons gave North­ern Region program managers anopportunity to test the changes indecisionmaking and operatingprocedures that grew out of theUSDA-USDI "Final Report on FireManagement Policy" and the ForestService's "Report of the Task Forceon Prescribed Fire ManagementCriteria." Some of the scenarios thatprescribed natural fire managers havehad to face during that period havebeen challenging. They included thefollowing:• Having enough qualified people to

manage a prescribed natural firethroughout its life.

• Ensuring that a line officer isavailable to make the Stage I andStage 2 decisions.

• Having a fire exceed its MAP andconsequently be declared awildfire.

• Experiencing a long, hot, dry fallseason that tests the "most severe"fire projection made for a pre­scribed natural fire.

• Having to implement the holdingplan on a prescribed natural fire toprevent it from exceeding theallowable perimeter.

• Addressing smoke managementconcerns on new starts within theplan area when several otherprescribed natural fires are alreadyburning.

All of these challenges weresuccessfully dealt with by using theprocedures outlined in the revisedprescribed natural fire plans.

Managed Fire Approach

Both inside and outside the ForestService many people erroneously viewthis program as a "let burn policy,"implying that managers take a callousapproach to fire. Prescribed naturalfires, in fact, are not allowed to bumfreely without consideration for wherethey are going or what impact they arehaving.

The staff on forests that haveprescribed natural fire programsdefinitely are "managing" these fires.For example, the fires are monitoredby either fixed lookouts or aircraft,and daily decisions are made to ensurethe fires are meeting objectivesoutlined in each prescribed natural fireburn plan. Occasionally, holdingactions will need to be taken to ensurethose objectives continue to be met.When it is no longer possible for theprescribed natural fire to meet theestablished objectives, then it will bedeclared a wildfire and firefighterswill take the most appropriate suppres­sion action.

Although it will never be possibleto remove all risk from a prescribednatural fire program, the NorthernRegion feels it has learned from the1988 experiences. It has used thisknowledge to improve operatingprocedures. As a result, the region hasgrown in its capacity to manage thiscomplex program in a highly profes­sional way.•

Fire Management Notes

• Position lookout or lookouts whereboth the hazard and the firefighters canbe seen. (Each situation-the terrain,cover, and fire size----detennines thenumber of lookouts that are needed.As stated before, every firefighter hasboth the authority and responsibility towarn others of threats to safety.)

• Set up communications system­radio, voice, or both-by which thelookout or lookouts warn firefighterspromptly and clearly of approachingthreat. (Most often the lookout initiatesa warning that is subsequently passeddown to each firefighter by "word-of­mouth." It is paramount that everyfirefighter receive the correct messagein a timely manner.)

• Establish the escape routes (at leasttwo)-the paths the firefighters take

Communlcation(s)

from threatened position to area freefrom danger-and make them known.(In the Battlement Creek 1976 fire,three firefighters lost their lives afterretreat along their only escape routewas cut off by the advancing fire.)

• Reestablish escape routes as their

Hazard-Firelinehazards such as fireentrapment,orfallingOf rolling oblects are .inherent in the wildfireenvironment.

The LCES systemapproach to firelinesafety is an outgrowthof my analysis offatalities and near­misses for over 20years of activefireline suppressionduties. LCES simply.refocuses on theessential elements ofthe standard FIREORDERS. Its useshould be automaticin fire line operations.All firefighters should'know LCES. theLookout -Commun­[cation-Escape

routes-Safety zone interconnection.•Paul Gleason, North Roosevettfire

managementofficer. USDAForestService,Arapahoand RooseveltNational Forests. RedfeatherRangerDistrict,Fort Collins,CO

effectiveness decreases. (As afirefighter works along the fireperimeter, fatique and distanceincreases the time required to reach asafety zone.)

• Establish safety zones-locationswhere the threatened firefighter mayfind adequate refuge from the danger.(Fireline intensity. air flow, andtopographic location determine asafety zone's effectiveness. Shelterdeployment sites have sometimes beentermed, improperly and unfortunately,"safety zones." Safety zones should beconceptualized and planned as alocation where no shelter will beneeded. This does not imply that ashelter should not be deployed ifneeded. only that if there is a deploy­ment, the safety zone location was not

truly a safety zone.)

A Final Word*~~,,,,,,,,,,,

/""" Firefighters.. ,I -,. ......

Route 1i ._.., Route 2

'. i\ :

Safaty zone(s)

Escape routes

LookOUl(S)

LCES-a Key to Safety inthe Wildland FireEnvironment

L-Lookout(s)C-Communication(s)E-Escape routesSc--Safety zone(s)LCES-a System for Operational

Safety. In the.wildland fire environment,where four basic safety hazards confrontthe firefighter-lightning, fire-weakenedtimber, rolling rocks, and entrapment byrunning fires-LeES is key to safeprocedure for firefighters. LeES standsfor "Iookoutts)," "communicationfs),""escape routes," and "safety zone(s)"­an interconnection each firefighter mustknow. Together the elements of LCESform a safety system used by firefightersto protect themselves. This safetyprocedure is put in place before fightingthe fire: Select a lookout or lookouts, setup a communication system, chooseescape routes, and select safety zone orzones. (See diagram.)

In operation, LCES functionssequentially-it's a self-triggeringmechanism: Lookouts assess-andreassess-c-the fire environment andcommunicate to each firefighter threatsto safety; firefighters use escape routesand move to safety zones. Actually, allfirefighters should be alert to changes inthe fire, environment and have theauthority to initiate communication.

Key Guidelines. LCES is built ontwo basic guidelines:• Before safety is threatened, each

firefighter must be informed how theLCES system will be used.

• The LeES system must becontinu­ously reevaluated as fire conditionschange.

How To Make LCES Work

• Train lookouts to observe the wildlandfire environment and to recognize andanticipate fire behavior changes.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 9

The Evolution of National ParkService Fire Policy1Jan W. van Wagtendonk

Research scientist, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Yosemite National Park, El Portal, CA

,

Fire policies in the National ParkService (NPS) have evolved from nomanagement at all, through the fullsuppression of all fires, to the sophisti­cated application of scientificallybased fire management strategies.When Yosemite Valley was set asideas a State reserve in 1864 andYellowstone as a national park in1872, there were no efforts to controlfires. An era of full fire suppressionbegan when management ofYellowstone passed to the U.S. Armyin 1886 and to NPS in 1916. Experi­mental prescribed burning was firstconducted in Everglades NationalPark in 195 J. The Leopold Report (the1963 report of the Leopold Commit­tee, a special NPS wildlife manage­ment committee) influenced NPS toreevaluate its fire policies. Revisionsto the policies completed in 1968permitted the use of fire as a manage­ment tool and led to the creation of thefirst wilderness fire managementprogram in Sequoia and Kings CanyonNational Parks. To date, more than2,000 lightning fires have beenallowed to bum under carefullymonitored conditions in 46 parks. andmore than 1,000 prescribed bums havebeen set in 58 parks to meet manage­ment objectives. The GreaterYellowstone Area (the YellowstoneNational Park and surroundingnational forests) fires in 1988 led to an

'Jan W. van Wagentonk's article, "TheEvolution of National Park Service Fire Policy,"slightly revised here, first appeared in "Fire andthe Environment: Ecological and CulturalPerspectives," a proceedings of an internationalsymposium held in Knoxville, TN, on March20-24, 1990, published by the SoutheasternForest Experiment Station in 1991 in Asheville,NC, as Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69.

10

examination of NPS fire policy, whichaffirmed current policy but recom­mended refinements in implementa­tion.

The Era of Fire Suppression

In 1864, President Lincoln set asideYosemite Valley and the MariposaGrove of sequoias as a State reserve.This was the first Federal Governmentaction specifically designating an areafor preservation and is considered bymany to mark the beginning of thenational park idea. Although theNative Americans who occupied theYosemite region had for at least 4,000years (Riley 1987) used fire for manycultural purposes, it is doubtful thatthey practiced any fire suppression.Early Euro-American settlers in theYosemite region used fire to clear landand to improve grazing for sheep andcattle. Their only fire suppressionefforts were directed toward protectingstructures. The State reserve employedonly one guardian, who had little timeto fight fires.

When Yellowstone and Yosemitewere designated as national parks in1872 and 1890, respectively, noagency was assigned responsibility fortheir administration, and their newstatus did not result in the implemen­tation of fire management. Althoughthere were no fire managementpolicies or activities during these earlyyears, the stage was set for thebeginnings of fire suppression.

The U.S. Army Years. The U.S.Army was assigned the responsibilityfor managing Yellowstone in 1886and Yosemite and Sequoia in 1891.The policy of suppressing all firesbegan in Yellowstone in 1886 (Agee

1974) and was soon followed bysimilar policies in the other twonational parks. The Army builtextensive trail systems to facilitatepatrolling the new parks for sheep andtimber trespass and for wildfires. Asnew parks were established, the Armyassumed control and dispatched thetroops to extinguish all fires. Althoughthere are few records of the Army'sefforts, fire scars were formed lessfrequently during this period (Kilgoreand Taylor 1979). This could beinterpreted to mean either that therewere few fires or that the Army wassuccessful in extinguishing those thatdid occur.

The Years of Forest, ServiceInfluence. When NPS was establishedin the U.S. Department of the Interiorin 1916, administration of the parkspassed into civilian hands. Many ofthe personnel who had previouslyserved in the Army switched uniformsand became the first park rangers.Although they carried with them thelessons and experience of fire suppres­sion, they had little formal training infire control. Professional guidance ofthe fire program came from the ForestService in the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (Pyne 1982). Establishedas a separate agency in 1905, theForest Service had developed both atheoretical basis for systematic fireprotection and considerable expertisein executing that theory in its manage­ment of National Forest System lands.The suppression of all fires becamethe official policy of the new NPS.

Since many of the parks establishedafter 1916 were originally parts ofnational forests, NPS inherited aninfrastructure of fire control facilitiesand equipment. Fire stations, lookouts,

Fire Management Notes

and trails were already in place. Inaddition, many of the new parkrangers came from the Forest Serviceand had forestry and fire backgrounds(Pyne 1982). The Forest Service andNPS joined together to form the ForestProtection Board, which advisedagencies on fire policy and standards.

Although NPS developed aseparate fire control organization, itrelied heavily on the Forest Servicefor expertise, personnel, and equip­ment. Mutual-aid agreements allowedthe two agencies to respond to firesacross boundaries and to share trainingand dispatching facilities. In mostcases, however, the exchange was inthe direction of the fledgling NPS.

The Civilian Conservation CorpsYears. Professional fire protectionbegan in the NPS with the establish­ment of the Civilian ConservationCorps (CCe) in 1933. A massiveinflux of personnel made it possible toexpand firefighting facilities anddeploy suppression forces throughoutthe parks. During the first 10 years,the fire staff went from a singlenational fire officer, a special crew atGlacier National Park, and a fire guardat Sequoia to an organization of some650 CCC camps, totalling 7,000employees (Pyne 1982).

NPS's fire policy was still identicalwith that of the Forest Service, whichin 1935 adopted a policy of extin­guishing any fire during the firstburning period or, if that were notpossible, by 10:00 a.m. the followingday. Strict adherence to this policyrequired quick response time andnumerous crews. Efforts were alsodirected toward developing betteraccess to further reduce responsetimes.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

National Park Service policiesconcerning fire have changed overthe years from no policy at all in theearly years, through years ofabsolute fire suppression, to aperiod of experimentation andrefinement with a full spectrum ofintegrated fire managementstrategies.

During this period, NPS greatlyprofessionalized its approach to fireprotection. Vegetation and fuel hazardmaps were prepared from fieldsurveys and response zones weredelineated. Complete fire records werekept; each fire's cause and behaviorwere described, and the measuresnecessary to control each fire weredetailed. These records did describeoccasional large fires that might haveexceeded the capabilities of thesuppression forces.

The War and Postwar Years.World War II caused a decline in fireprotection throughout the Nation.Skeleton crews were kept on to protectresources necessary for the war effort.NPS crews were practically nonexist­ent, although the fire records showthat fires were still being suppressedsuccessfully.

Demobilization after the warbrought a new and different kind ofinflux to the firefighting agencies.Although the Forest Service had usedbulldozers and smokejumpers beforethe war, airplanes. helicopters, tanks,and parachutes were products the wareffort had refined and now available tofight the war against fire. Retardantdrops, helitack crews, bulldozers, andsmokejumpers became the new toolsof choice (USDA Forest Service

1960). NPS relied heavily on theForest Service for this new technologyand shared support of aircraft and asmokejumper base at Yellowstone(Pyne 1982). The resulting firefightingforce was very effective in continuingthe policy of full fire suppression.

The Era of Fire Management.The effectiveness of fire protectionwas partly responsible for the begin­nings of an NPS shift in policy fromfire control to fire management. Ashad long been recognized in the South,the absence of fire from an ecosystemthat has evolved with fire can lead tounexpected, and often undesirable,results. Specifically, researchers foundthat periodic fires reduced accumula­tions of woody and hrushy fuels andthinned thick understories of shade­tolerant species. Without fire, speciescomposition shifted and fuel accumu­lations increased.

The Years of Revelation. Al­though the NPS's first experimentswith the use of fire occurred inEverglades National Park in 1951(Robertson 1962), impetus for achange in policy came later fromoutside researchers in California. Asearly as 1959, Dr. Harold H. Biswellof the University of California atBerkeley advocated the use ofprescribed fires to reduce the accumu­lation of debris underneath ponderosapine stands in the Sierra Nevada ofCalifornia (BiswellI959). His workwas expanded upon by Dr. RichardHartesvelt of San Jose State Univer­sity, who concluded that the greatestthreat to the giant sequoia groves wasnot trampling by humans, hut wascatastrophic fire burning throughunderstory thickets and unnaturally

11

high accumulations of fuel (Hartesvelt1962).

In 1962. the Secretary of theInterior asked a committee to look intowildlife management concerns in thenational parks.This committee, namedafter its chair, Dr. A. Starker Leopold,did not confine its report to wildlife,but took a broader ecological viewthat parks should be managed asecosystems (Leopold and others1963). They recommended that thebiotic associations within a park bemaintainedor recreated as nearly aspossible in the condition that prevailedwhen first visited by Euro-Americans.The report stated an often quotedpassage:

When the forty-niners pouredover the SierraNevada intoCalifornia, those that keptdiaries spoke almost to a man ofthe wide-spaced columns ofmaturetrees thatgrew on thelower western slope in giganticmagnificence. The groundwas agrass parkland, in springtimecarpeted with wildflowers. Deerand bears were abundant. Todaymuch of the west slope is a dog­hair thicket of young pines,white fir, incense cedar, andmature brush-a direct functionof overprotection from naturalground fires. Within the fournational parks-Lassen,Yosemite, Sequoia, and KingsCanyon-the thickets are evenmore impenetrable than else­where. Not only is this accumu­lation of fuel dangerous to thegiant sequoias and othermaturetrees but the animal life ismeager, wildflowers are sparse,and to some at least the vegeta-

12

tion tangle is depressing, notuplifting. Is it possible that theprimitive open forest could berestored,at least on a localscale? And if so, how? [Leopoldand others 1963.]It was not a coincidence that Dr.

Leopold's office was just across thestreet from Dr. Biswell's. In fact, thesegentlemen often discussed theecological ramifications of fireexclusion over lunch and duringseminars. Nor is it surprising that theirgraduate students would pursue fire­related Ph.D. dissertation topics andbecome NPS scientists (Kilgore 1968;van Wagtendonk 1972; Agee 1973;Graber 1981). The intellectualatmosphere at Berkeley invitedstudents to challenge conventionalapproaches and practices.

The Turning Point. Only in 1968,after several false starts, was theLeopold Committee report incorpo­rated into policy. First the Secretary ofthe Interior had to find out whether ornot the report's findings were accept­able to the public. A departmentunderlingwas sent to the meetingwhere the report was being presentedand found it to be overwhelminglysupported. NPS was then directed toincorporate the report into its manage­ment policies. The entire reportwasincluded as an appendix and thesection on fire management revised toreflect the new thinking (USDINational Park Service 1968). For thefirst time since 1916, NPS viewed fireas a natural process rather than as amenace:

The presence or absence ofnatural fire within a givenhabitat is recognized as one ofthe ecological factors contribut-

ing to the perpetuation of plantsand animals to that habi tat.

Fires in vegetation resultingfrom natural causes are recog­nized as natural phenomena andmay he allowed to run theircourse when such burning canbe contained within predeter­mined fire management unitsand when such hurning willcontribute to the accomplish­ment of approved vegetationand/or wildland managementobjectives.

Prescribed burning to achieveapproved vegetation and/orwildland objectives may beemployed as a substitutefornatural fire. [USDI NationalPark Service 1968.]The Years of Experimentation.

As is often the case with the NPS, apolicy change led to experimentation.A prescribed natural fire program wasinitiated in Sequoia and Kings CanyonNational Parks in 1968 (Kilgore andBriggs 1972), as were concurrentresearchstudies of prescribed burns(Kilgore 1971; Parsons 1976). AtYosemite National Park,a similarprescribednatural fire program wasstarted in 1972 (van Wagtendonk1978), and research concentrated onrefining techniques for prescribedburning (van Wagtendonk 1974;van Wagtendonk and Botti 1982).Experimental bums were ignited inseveral national parks,andYellowstone and a few other parksestablished prescribed natural firezones (Romme and Despain 1989).

The Years of Policy Refinement.As experience with both prescribedburning and prescribed natural fireprogramsincreased, interim guidelines

Fire Management Notes

were issued, Research also continuedto contribute to the growing body ofknowledge on both fire ecology andfire use. Contrary to Pyne's (1982)assertion, NPS was a leader in thedevelopment of prescribed natural firetechniques. Although NPS personnelcooperated with Forest Servicemanagers and researchers in the samefield, they did not need to look to theForest Service for leadership.

The first revision of the 1968 firepolicy came out in 1978 when allmanagement policies for the NPSwere rewritten (USDI National ParkService 1978). The policy stated:

Fire is a powerful phenom­enon with the potential todrastically alter the vegetativecover of any park,

The presence or absence ofnatural fires within a givenecosystem is recognized as apotent factor stimulating,retarding or eliminating variouscomponents of the ecosystem.Most natural fires are lightning­caused and are recognized asnatural phenomena which mustbe permitted to continue toinfluence the ecosystem if trulynatural systems are to beperpetuated.

Management fires, includingboth prescribed natural fires andprescribed burns, are thosewhich contribute to the attain­ment of the managementobjectives of the park throughexecution of predeterminedprescriptions defined in detail inthe Fire Management Plan, aportion of the approved NaturalResources Management Plan,

All fires not classed as

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

management fires are "wild­fires" and will be suppressed,[USDI National Park Service1978.]The policy further described the

conditions under which fire could beused and specified that any manage­ment fire would be suppressed if itposed a threat to human life, culturalresources, physical facilities, orthreatened or endangered species or ifit threatened to escape from predeter­mined zones or to exceed the prescrip­tion.

The Forest Service was alsorevising its fire policy to embrace firemanagement rather than fire control(DeBruin 1974). In 1978 it abandonedthe 10:00 a.rn. policy in favor of a newone that encouraged the use of fire byprescription. The Forest Service'spolicy was also preceded by experi­mentation and research.

Thus, after a period of 10 years,policies of both the NPS and theForest Service recognized the ecologi­cal role of fire and provided for itsuse. Pyne (1982) states, "Guided bythe dazzling philosophy of theLeopold Report, the Park Service hadadvanced a policy too far ahead of itsknowledge and technical skills; theForest Service, with expertise andinformation in abundance, lagged inpolicy." While not entirely correct, hisstatement does point out the distinc­tive and synergistic roles the twoagencies play.

In 1986, the Wildland Fire Man­agement Guideline (NPS-18) wasissued. It outlined in detail theprocedures and standards to be used tomanage wildfires, prescribed naturalfires, and prescribed burns in thenational parks (USDI National Park

Service 1986). With regard to pre- ,scribed natural fires, the new guidelinespecified that the condition limitsunder which naturally ignited fireswould be permitted to bum must beclearly stated. In addition, the ultimatesize and boundaries of the fires mustbe preplanned and stated. Parks werealso required to monitor each fire andto assess each burning day whether ornot the fire should be allowed tocontinue to bum unimpeded.

Although there were no apparentproblems with NPS's fire policies,they were revised again in March of1988 as part of a IO-year comprehen­sive review of the managementpolicies (USDI National Park Service1988). The new policy emphasizesmanagement objectives and plans:

Fire is a powerful phenom­enon with the potential todrastically alter the vegetativecover of any park. Fire maycontribute to or hinder theachievement of park objectives.Park fire management programswill be designed around re­source management objectivesand the various managementzones of the park. Fire-relatedmanagement objectives will beclearly stated in a fire manage­ment plan, which is prepared foreach park with vegetationcapable of burning, to guide afire management program that isresponsive to park needs.

All fires in parks are classi­fied as either prescribed fires orwildfires. Prescribed firesinclude fires deliberately set bymanagers (prescribed bums) orfires of natural origins permittedto bum under prescribed

13

conditions (prescribed naturalfires) to achieve predeterminedresource management objec­tives. To ensure that theseobjectives are met, eachprescribed fire will be conductedaccording to a written prescrip­tion. All fires that do not meetthe criteria for prescribed firesare wildfires and will besuppressed. [USDI NationalPark Service 1988.]

The Post-Yellowstone Era

The fires of the GreaterYellowstone Area during the summerof 1988 brought fire policies of theNPS and the Forest Service underclose scrutiny. The Secretary ofAgriculture and the Secretary of theInterior appointed an interagency firemanagement policy review team toinvestigate the adequacy of nationalpolicies and their application for firemanagement actions in national parksand wilderness and to recommendactions to address the problemsexperienced during the 1988 fireseason. With regard to policy, thereview team recommended thefollowing:• Prescribed fire policies be

reaffirmed and strengthened.• Fire management plans be

reviewed to assure that currentpolicy requirements are met andexpanded to include interagencyplanning, stronger prescriptions,and additional decision criteria.[USDA and USDI 1989.]A moratorium was placed on all

prescribed natural fire programs untilthe agencies had complied with therecommendations of the review team.

14

Although NPS policies were deter­mined to be adequate, implementationguidelines and fire management planswere found to be in need of revision.

A task force was convened torewrite NPS-18, the fire managementguideline. The guideline was com­pletely rewritten and addressed all ofthe operational recommendations ofthe review team report (USDI Na­tional Park Service 1990). Specifi­cally, it requires approved firemanagement plans, establishedcontingency plans, quantified pre­scriptions, monitoring procedures, firesituation analyses, and daily certifica­tion by the line manager that resourcesare available to manage the fire withinthe prescription. In addition, theprescription must include at least oneindicator of drought and at least onedefinition of the maximum prescribedextent of the fire.

All the existing fire managementplans were reviewed by teams of firespecialists from throughout the NPSfor compliance with the review teamreport and for adequacy of environ­mental documentation and publicparticipation. Plans were sent back tothe parks for revision. As of Septem­ber 1992, over 100 fire managementplans have been approved. FifteenNPS areas have approved prescribednatural fire plans, nine more expect tohave approved plans in 2 years, andfive national parks are consideringplans.

NPS fire policies have evolved in apattern of leaps forward followed byexperimentation and refinement. Thedecentralized nature of the agencyallows it to take advantage of newphilosophical ideas and translate theminto policy. The experience and

expertise within the NPS ensures thatit will continue to play that role.•

Literature Cited

Agee, James K. 1973. Prescribed fire effects onphysical and hydrologic properties of mixedconifer forest floor and soil. Berkeley, CA:University of California. 57 p. Ph.D.dissertation.

Agee, James K. 1974. Environmental impactsfrom fire management alternatives.San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of theInterior, National Park Service, WesternRegional Office. 92 p.

Biswell, Harold H. 1959. Man and fire inponderosa pine in the Sierra Nevada ofCalifornia. Sierra Club Bulletin.44(7): 44-53.

Debruin. Henry W. 1974. From fire control tofire management: a major policy change inthe Forest Service. In: Proceedings 14th TallTimbers fire ecology conference; 1974 [dateunknown]; Missoula, MT. Tallahassee. FL:Tall Timbers Research Station: 11-17.

Graber, David M. 1981. Ecology and manage­ment of black bears in Yosemite NationalPark. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia. 206 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Hartesvelt. Richard J. 1962. Effects of humanimpact upon Sequoia gigantea and itsenvironment in the Mariposa Grove,Yosemite National Park, California. AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan. 310 p.Ph.D. dissertation.

Kilgore, Bruce M. 1968. Breeding birdpopulations in managed and unmanagedstands of Sequoia gigantea. Berkeley, CA:University of California. 196 p. Ph.D.dissertation.

Kilgore, Bruce M. 1971. The role of fire inmanaging red fir forests. In: Transactions36th North American wildlife and naturalresources conference; 1971 May 7-10;Washington, DC. Washington, DC: WildlifeManagement lnsriture: 405-4lfi

Kilgore, Bruce M.; Briggs, George S. 1972.Restoring fire to high elevation forests inCalifornia. Journal of Forestry.70(5): 266-271.

Kilgore, Bruce M.; Taylor, Dan. 1979. Firehistory of a Sequoia-mixed conifer forest.Ecology. 60(1): 129-142.

Fire Management Notes

Leopold, A. Starker; Cain, Stanley A.; Cottam,Clarence M.; Gabrielson, Ira N.; Kimball,Thomas L. 1963. Wildlife management inthe national parks. In: Transactions 28thNorth American wildlife and naturalresources conference; 1963 [date unknown];Washington, DC. Washington, DC: WildlifeManagement Institute: 1-18.

Parsons, David J. \976. The role of fire innatural communities: an example from thesouthern Sierra Nevada, California.Environmental Conservation. 3(2): 91-99.

Pyne, Stephen J. 1982. Fire in America: Acultural history of wildland and rural fire.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.654 p.

Riley, Lynn M. 1987. Archeological investiga­tions in the Merced River Canyon: report ofthe 1983 El Portal Archeological Project.Publications in Anthropology 3. EI Portal,CA: U.S. Department of the Interior,National Park Service. Yosemite NationalPark. 287 p.

Robertson, William B. 1962. Fire andvegetation in the Everglades. In: Proceed­ings l st Tall Timbers fire ecologyconference; 1962 March] -2; Tallahassee,FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers ResearchStation: 67-80.

Romme, William H.; Despain, Don G. 1989.The Yellowstone fires. Scientific American.261(5),37-46.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.1960. Air attack on forest fires. AgriculturalInformation Bulletin 229. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 32 p.

U.S. Departmern.of Agriculture; U.S.Department of the Interior. 1989. Finalreport on fire management policy.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture and U.S. Department of theInterior. 20 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 1968. Compilation of theadministrative policies for the national parksand national monuments of scientificsignificance. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 138 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 1978. Management policies.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of theInterior, National Park Service. 10 chapters.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 1986. Wildland fire managementguideline: NPS-18. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 22 chapters; 8 appendixes.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 1988. Management policies.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of theInterior, National Park Service. \ \ chapters.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 1990. Wildland fire managementguideline: NPS-18 . Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 22 chapters; 8 appendixes.

van Wagtendonk , Jan W. 1972. Fire and fuelrelationships in Yosemite National Park.Berkeley, CA: University of California.163 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Metrics, Microdisks, andFire Management Notes

Keep Ihe English Units, bulConvert to Metric Too, For the past 4

years, Fire Management Notes, which

uses the English unit system of weight

and measure, has published the metric

equivalent for the English unit. Metric

conversions are helpful to FireManagement Notes' many international

readers, Some of the magazine's

authors regularly make those

conversions on the manuscripts they

submit. Thank you. Your conversions

increase editing productivity. Now, a

request to "unconverted" contributors­

it would help a lot if you too would

include the metric unit along with the

English.

van Wagtendonk, Jan W. 1974. Refined burningprescriptions for Yosemite National Park.Occasional Paper 2. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National ParkService. 21 p.

van Wagtendonk. Jan W. 1978. Wilderness FireManagement in Yosemite National Park. In:Schofield, Edmund A., editor. EARTH­CARE: Global protection of natural areas:Proceedings of the 14th biennial wildernessconference; 1975 June 5-8; New York.Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 324-335.

van wagtendonk, Jan W.; Botti, Stephen J.1984. Modeling behavior of prescribed firesin Yosemite National Park. Journal ofForestry. 82(8): 479-484.

Save Millions of Keystrokes­

Send a Microdlsk. This is a message

for authors who do not use the Data

General system to submit manuscripts

to Fire Management Notes, Editing for

Fire Management Notes is now done

electronically, as has been done for

some time. To use the original

keystrokes works toward greater

accuracy and, as is obvious, saves hours

of keystroking and proofreading. So

authors, outside the "00" system, keep

those articles coming in hard copy

and-c-microdisk (WordPerfect or DOS

ASCII text fonnat) .•Doris N. Celarier, writer-editor,

USDA Forest Service, Public AffairsOffice, Washington, DC

15

New Jersey's Initial Attack Strategy:Keep the Little Ones SmallJoseph R. Hughes

Assistant State firewarden, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,Division of Parks and Forestry, Trenton. NJ

\

To those unfamiliar with theGarden State. the use of the words"forest fire" and "New Jersey" in thesame sentence may seem like acontradiction. Many, whose onlyimpression of the State has been viathe New Jersey Turnpikeor from anews story, might be skeptical aboutclaims of significant forest resources.They would assume that the State'sfires are structural and urban. How­ever, these perceptions are inaccurate.

Although New Jersey is the mostdensely populated State in the Nationwith over 1,000 people per squaremile (386/km2), nearly 40 percent ofthe State is commercial forest land.Another 13 percent of the land is inparks, recreation areas, and watershed

management areas. Thus 53 percent­or slightly more than half----{)f theState is presently forest land and openspace. The high population (risk)combined with a readily availablewildland fuel source (hazard) hasproduced a significant wildfireproblem in the Garden State.

Destruction from Wildfires

Each year an average of 1,700wildfires damage or destroy 7,000acres (2,833 hal of New Jersey forestland. Fires not only damage wood­lands, but they also have destroyedstructures and other improved prop­erty. Forest fires have become a majorthreat to the increasing numberofhomeowners who live in the State'sforest environments.

Fire has been a major factor in NewJersey's environment since prehistorictimes. Natural fires and burningdoneby Native Americans played a majorrole in shaping the land and creating

16

the forests that greeted early settlers.The New Jersey Pinelands, whichresulted from a 10,000- to 15,000-yearfire history, is one of the mosthazardous wildland fuel types in theNation. The National Fire-DangerRating System classifies the vegeta­tion of the New Jersey Pinelands, withCalifornia chaparral and a number ofother high-hazard fuel types, as FuelModule B. Fuel loadings exceed 20tons per acre (45 tons per hal in somelocales. This has been equated tohaving an inch (2 1/2 em) of gasolinecovering all of south and central NewJersey. Pinelands fires bum extremelyhot and spread rapidly. Crown firesare fairly common-as is long-rangespotting. There is a documented caseof a wildfire spreading 9 miles (14km) in 6 hours, or at a rate of 1.5miles (2.4 km) per hour. Another firewas reported to have jumped the upperend of Barnegat Bay. In 1971, a21,000-acre (8,499-ha) wildfirelasted-from start to finish-7 hoursand 13 minutes.

A final example indicates theState's wildland-urban interfaceproblem and potential for disaster. Onthe weekend of April 20-22, 1963, aseries of large wildfires burned over190,000 acres (76,893 hal of NewJersey woodland, consuming 186homes and 191 other buildings.Property loss was placed at $8.5million and seven people were killed.Nearly 4 percent of the entire landareaof the State was burned in oneweekend! Nearly 30 years later, weknow that such a disaster could occuragain in the wildland-urban inter­face-partly because of the increase inretirement communities and residen­tial developments.

In addition to the Pine lands, thehardwood forests of northern NewJersey also pose a significant wildfireproblem. Although not as flammableas the Pinelands, the hardwood forestsare located in steeper and more ruggedterrain, which makes accessibility amajor concern. The hills and ridges ofnorthern New Jersey also have anincreasing numberof vacation andyear-round residential homes.

Protection from Wildfires

The New Jersey Forest Fire Servicein the Department of EnvironmentalProtection and Energy, Division ofParks and Forestry, is the State agencyresponsible for protecting New Jerseyforests and open space from fire. TheForest Fire Service, also known as theBureauof Forest Fire Management,has 3.15 million acres (1.27 millionhal of both private and public landunderprotection.

In orderto accomplish its protec­tion goals and perform a varietyofrelated functions, the State Forest FireService has a full-time force of 75full-time employees and a large part­time force to handle the State's forestfire problems. The number of full-timeState employees has dropped from ahigh of 92 in 1990, due to State budgetcuts. The Forest Fire Service has hadto do more with less--despite anincreased protection area and growingwildland-interface problem. Operatingefficiency and getting the most out ofthe dollar have become more criticalas State budgets have shrunk.

Over the years, the Forest FireService has developed a highlyeffective, successful, andcost-efficientmethod of combating wildland fires in

Fire Management Notes

The New Jersey initial attack vehicle is the standard vehicle used hy many wildland agencies in theUnited States, specially designed and reinforced to drive through wooded areas to get to afire.

I

I~

New Jersey. This formula has reducedthe number of acres burned and keptthe cost of suppression down to one ofthe lowest in the Nation-despiteinflation and rising operating costs.

Initial Attack Strategy

The Forest Fire Service's strategybegins with rapid early detection. Thefire lookout towers have been keptopen despite the fact that a number ofother States and Federal agencies haveabandoned theirs. Lookout towers arestaffed whenever the woods are dryenough to bum. Observers can spotfires within the first 5 minutes of theirstart. A fire is much easier to controlin its incipient stages. This is ex­tremely important in fast-spreadingfires in the Pinelands where a delay indetection of a mere 15 minutes mayresult in a major fire.

The State's forest fire towers arealso charged with initial dispatching ofequipment, notification of air bases,and helping to coordinate activities atthe fire scene. Detection aircraft maybe used to supplement towers duringlow-visibility days.

The second step in this strategy israpid, aggressive initial attack. Acombination of mechanized equipmentand aerial bombing of fires has provenhighly effective. It has enabledfirefighters to hit fires faster and keepthe average size of fires and theacreages lost low. The section forestfirewarden, in most instances, formsthe initial attack force and serves asthe Incident Commander.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

Initial Attack Engines

The backbone of the State ForestFire fleet-and the vehicle used forinitial attack operations-is a speciallydesigned, reinforced engine that is

Expanded air power and increasedmechanized equipment in the late1960's through the 1980's havereduced both the number of acresburned and the average size of firesin New Jersey.

capable of negotiating off-road areasto get to a fire. This use of equipmenthas proved highly effective in the flat­to-gently-rolling Pinelands. ForestFire Service maintenance specialistsand fire observers build all thevehicles at three regional and one

State Research and DevelopmentMaintenance Facility, beginning witha Dodge' W350 truck chassis andutility body. A 250-gallon (946-L)tank, plumbing, and reinforcing areadded to complete the job. All trucksare equipped with portable high­pressure pumps and an independentfuel supply. enabling the vehicle tocontinue to pump if the truck's enginestops or vapor locks during firesuppression operations.

Initial attack engines are con­structed at an average cost of $3 I ,750.which is $85,000 less than what aqualified outside vendor would chargeto construct a comparable vehicleunder the State bid process.

'The use of trade names does not constituteofficial endorsement of the product by theUSDA Forest Service.

17

The elaborate system of reinforcingoff-road firefighting vehicles had itsorigin in New Jersey. As early as the1930's, angle iron was used to bracefenders and bumpers for off-roadoperation. The system of reinforcingand protection improved significantlywith the advent of the Dodge PowerWagon following World War II.Additional reinforcing and roll barswere added in the 1950's and 1960's,not only to protect the vehicles butalso the occupants of the cab and therear compartment where firefighterscould be stationed during pump androll operations.

A description of the systemdeveloped for protecting New Jerseybrush trucks was submitted to theRoscommon Equipment and Develop­ment Center in Roscommon, MI, in1971. A set of seven prints weredeveloped and have been circulated toall the Northeastern States and otherson Roscommon's mailing list.

Attacking the Wildfire

The most effective strategyemployed during initial attackoperations is a direct flank attackusing pump and roll techniques. Aftersize-up, a section warden will proceedin a counter-clockwise directioncompletely around the fire. Twoindividuals usually constitute a crew;three is the maximum. An engine crewconsists of a driver and either one ortwo hose operators on the back of thevehicle between the cab and the tank.Drivers proceed around the perimeterof the fire, picking their way as theygo. Even though the initial attackvehicles are capable of driving over6-inch (lS-cm) pine trees, they are

18

avoided whenever possible to reducedamage to both the vehicle and theenvironment. The window on thedriver's side is left open so the driverknows how much heat the hoseoperators on the back of the vehicleare receiving. The hose operatorsdirect a water stream out in front ofthe engine, knocking down the fire asthe engine negotiates it and pinchingoff its head in the process. Theengines are also set up with a small3/4-inch (2-cm) handline that willenable a driver to operate indepen­dently. Engines are also equipped withlive reels and I 1/2-inch (4-cm) linesto increase versatility and firepower.

Whenever possible, engines areemployed in tandem with the secondattack vehicle reinforcing and backingup the first. This tactic greatly speedsup suppression operations. The secondengine can mop up or catch what theinitial vehicle missed or rekindledduring its first pass. In addition, if thefirst vehicle runs out of water, thesecond one may continue with theattack.

During high fire-danger periods,initial attack engines are placed onpatrol in high hazard areas to provideseveral advantages. They not onlyreduce response time, but they are adeterrent to would-be arsonists, whoare responsible for 50 percent of theState's forest fires. A third advantageis that task forces of two or moreengines and tractor and plow units canbe rapidly dispatched to fires that arereported in areas with a high firepotential.

Foam technology and wet water areadded to increase efficiency andoperational capabilities. All truckshave the capability of batch mixing,

and foam injectors are being added toall new section trucks.

Fireline Decisionmaking

After a fire is "knocked down," adecision is made on whether toconstruct a fireline. This decision ismade based on the fire weather, size ofthe fire, and turf conditions. Firelinesare constructed by tractor and plowunits that are available on call.

The Forest Fire Service reliesprimarily on John Deere 350 bulldoz­ers, equipped with a Fesco fireplow forthis task. They are capable of plowing aS-foot (I.S-m) furrow to mineral soiland also have a blade for pushing a line.Each tractor and plow unit has aspecially designed cage built around the

Fire observers such as Kevin Drake ensure thatthe quick initial detection afwildfiressubstantially reduces the initial attack time.

Fire Management Notes

\

Table I--New Jersey acreage burned hy decade

Additional Specialized Equipment

The Forest Fire Service also hasseveral pieces of specializedequipmentincluding wide-trackbulldozers forswampy areas, track vehicles for remote

highly efficientand cost effective in itsforest fire suppression operations.TheAgcat can drop a load of up to 300 gallons(1,136L) of wateror foam on a fire, The$425 per hour cost is highly competitivecompared to other rates that may run intothousands of dollars. The positioningofaircraft to strategic locationsaround theState and subsequent movement toalternateair fieldscloser to thefife sceneduring suppressionoperations has reducedtum-around time and increasedefficiency.

The Forest Fire Service has alsorecently acquired three helicopters,aCessna 180,and a Piper PA 18throughtheFederal Excess Property Program.These are being used for detectionandaerial command and control operationswhere a "picture is worth a thousandwords." Dispatchingan aircraftearly to afire with developing "potential" hasgreatly helped managers to assess andcontrol the fire scene and aid in commanddecisions.

This discussion has been directedatNew Jersey's strategy and equipment fordealing with the State's wildland fireproblems. It has been confmed primarilyto those methods used during initialattackoperationsand not project-sizefires,NewJersey has found that the best strategytodeal with project-sizefires is to keep themfrom becoming so in the first place!Combining rapid early detectionand rapidinitialattack with mechanized equipmentand aircraft has proven effective inreducingthe number of large andpotentiallydestructive wildfires in NewJersey.•

Best Strategy for New Jersey WildlandFire Problems-Early Detection andRapid Initial Attack

1~.87 (6.83)

6.65 (2.69)

Average size of fire in acres (ha)

4.67 (1.89)

areas of northern New Jersey, and 1D 24dozers for the really largejobs.

Aircraft have increasinglyproved theirworth during forest fire suppressionoperations,especially during initialattack.A drop aircraftis automatically dispatchedto a fire when air attack bases areoperational.

The mission of the aircraft is to knocka fire down and keep it down with aninitialload of water or foam until groundforces arrive, In many cases, attack aircraftcan get to a fire scene faster than initialattack vehicles.

The Forest Fire Service has found theAgcat, an agriculturalspray plane, to be

73,748 (29,846)

122,710 (49,661)

Acres (ha) burned

31 1,540 (126,080)

Year

1980-89

cab to protect the operator. Unlike units inthe South, New Jersey tractor and plowunitsdo not carry water and are used onlyafter a fire has been knocked down duringinitialattack operations.The State believesthis policy provides safer operatingconditions for the operator. Plowing firescuts down on escapes and reduces mopupand patrol time.

196~9

1970-79

New Iersey fuel types are classified as Fuel Model B--one of the most hazardous in the Nation.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 19

An Analysis of a Forest Fire Protection Surveyfor the Southern United StatesMark R. Dubois and Thomas J. Straka

Respectively, research assistant II, Department ofForestry, Mississippi State University, MississippiStale, MS. and associate professor, Department ofForest Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, SC

Figure I-The /2 Slates included in the survey are Oklahoma (a small part), Texas. Arkansas.Louisiana. Tennessee. Mississippi. Alabama. Georgia, virginia. North Carolina, South Carolina, andFlorida. Respondents use this map to idenlify the physiographic characteristics associated with theirforest operations.

Most State forestry agencies in theSouthern United States were estab­lished to meet the fire protection needsof forest lands. Today, these forestlands provide substantial economicbenefits and recreational opportuni­ties, and fire protection continues to bean important mission of State forestryagencies. In many areas of theSouthern United States, however, fireprotection has become a cooperativeeffort among Federal and Stateagencies, the private forest industry,and rural fire departments. Addition­ally, two fire compacts in the SouthernUnited States facilitate cooperativeinterstate fire protection when severefire conditions arise.

Recent economic conditions haveaffected fire protection operatingbudgets. The forest industry in someparts of the Southern United States isreducing fire prevention, detection,and suppression equipment andpersonnel and relying on Stateagencies for fire protection. Theshifting of fire protection responsibili­ties may have contributed to a declinein fire protection costs for the forestindustry from 1982 to 1988 (Dubois,Straka, Watson 1991). Most Stateagencies are now facing increasingfire protection responsibilities anddeclining operating budgets.

A survey on fire protectionpractices and costs in ]2 SouthernStates (fig. I) in 1990 provided usefuldata for forestry managers andplanners. A total of 54 survey re­sponses from Federal and Stateagencies and the forest industryprovided descriptions of their forestryoperations and costs. The forestindustry had the most survey re­sponses, with 39-72 percent of the

20

total number of responses. Surveyquestions (table I) were designed toelicit general information for commonfire protection activities occurring in1990, so emerging fire protectiontechniques and equipment may not beincluded. (See accompanying box fordetails about the survey of forestpractices and costs.)

Forest Land Fire Protection

Type of Organization andGeography. Figure 2 summarizesinformation from the 54 surveyrespondents about the acres of forestland protected, according to type oforganization. State agencies, with fivesurvey responses, accounted for 56million acres (23 million hal or 69percent of the reported acreage. This

State acreage probably includes forestlands also protected by forest industryand possibly that of the Federalagencies. The Coastal Plain regionaccounted for 72 million acres (29million ha)-89 percent of the totalarea reported.

Detection Systems. Fire detectionsystems in the Southern United Stateshave shifted from ground-based towersystems to air-based detectionsystems. Figure 3 shows fire detectionsystems used by type of organizationand categorized as air, tower, air andtower, and other. Air-based firedetection systems accounted for 26million acres (II million hal or 32percent of the total. Tower-based firedetection systems were reported onlyby the forest industry, which probablyrelied on fire detection provided by

Fire Management Notes

CLEMSONUNIV"ERSIT"Y

2. What is the primary type of equipment used for fire suppression?

I. Number of acres protected, _

3. What is the primary method of fire detection? (Check one)Aerial__ Fire tower__ Ground__Combination (please specify), _

Table l-QueslifHl5 included in the general fire protection sl4r\'ey

~ Other

State-owned and -operated fire towers.Federal agencies relied heavily on air­based detection systems with suchsystems accounting for 98 percent oftheir acreage reported. State agenciesrelied on various combinations ofdetection systems, with 79 percent ofthe acreage under the air and towerand other categories. The "other"category includes a variety of systems,including ground detection, combina­tions of air, tower, and ground, andreliance on State agencies for firedetection.

Crawler Tractor Size. Firesuppression systems in the SouthernUnited States were based largely onground-based equipment such ascrawler tractors for constructing firelines. Information from the survey wascategorized by the size of the crawlertractor (fig. 4). "Small" tractors are

D AirfTower~ Tower• AirPiedmontand UplandD

Total cost per acre

CoastalPlain

Examples: John Deere 350 with rear-mounted plow.Caterpillar D3 with rear-mounted plow.

4. Average cost per acre for area protected as:Direct labor _Equipment _Supervision _Overhead _

•

'I

Forestindustry

30.4

State

NA NA 0.1

Federal

6.7

ForestIndustry

State

50.9

Federal

Figure ~umherofacres (in millions)protected hy type of geography and

organization.

Figure 3--Number ofacres (in millions) protected by type oforganization and fire detection system."Other" includes ground detection; combinations ofair, tower, and ground: and reliance on Stateagencies. (NA means information not avaitabte.}

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 21

Figure 4--Numoer ofacres (in millions) protected hy type oforganization and size ofcrawler tractor.

"Small" tractors are smaller than a John Deere 450 or Caterpillar D3, "medium" are John Deere

450 and Caterpittar D3 or D4 (or equivalent), and "large" are those larger than a Caterpillar D4.(NA means information not availahle.)

Fire Protection Costs

Survey respondents providedinformation about the costs of fireprotection, detection, and suppressionsystems, which are summarized on aper acre basis in figure S. The averagecost per acre is weighted by the areaof forest land protected.

Type of Organization andRegion. Overall average fire protec­tion costs for 1990 were $0.64 peracre ($1.58/ha) in 1990. Fire protec-

In times of dwindling operatingbudgets, labor costs and how theyare controlled become ever moreimportant to managers and thefuture cost of fire protection.

Forestindustry

12.9

o Large

NA

30.4

State

~ Medium

NA

Federal

5.7

• Small

Figure 5---Weighted average cost (cents per acre) of general fire protection hy type of organization

and geography. (The asterisk (*) indicates an insufficient number of responses to show costinformation.)

smaller than a John Deere 450 orCaterpillar D3,1 "medium" are JohnDeere 450 and Caterpillar D3 or D4(and equivalent), and "large" are thosecrawler tractors larger than a Caterpil­lar D4. Small equipment protected 42percent and medium equipmentprotected 55 percent of the totalacreage. Figure 4 shows there was amarked difference in size of equip­ment used by type of organization.State agencies used 46 percent smalltractors compared with 54 percentmedium. The forest industry, however,relied more heavily on the medium­sized equipment--69 percent ascompared with 17 percent for thesmall equipment.

"The use of trade names does not constituteofficial endorsement by the USDA ForestService, Mississippi State University, andClemson University.

•CoastalPlain

Federal

Piedmontand Upland

68¢ 71¢

State

o

Forestindustry

OverallAverage

Overall

22 Fire Management Notes

",

Overall

D Large

Overall

D Other

Forestindustry

~ Air/Tower

~ Medium

Forest'industry

NA

State

NA

Slate

85¢

• Tower

NA

Federal

Federal

~ Air

• Small

63¢

Figure 7-Weighted average cost (cents per acre) ofgeneral fire protection hy type oforganizationand crawler tractor size. "Small" tractors are smaller than a John Deere 450 or Caterpillar D3,"medium" are John Deere 450 and Cute/pillar D3 01' D4 (and equivalent), and "large" are thoselarger than a Caterpillar D4. (The asterisk (*) indicates an insufficient number ofresponses to showcost information; NA nlCt/llS information flot availahle.)

Figure 6-Weighted GI'eragecost (dotters ana cents per acre) of genera/fire protection hy type oforganization and fire detection system. "Other" includes ground detection: combinations ofair,tower, and ground; and reliance on State agencies. (The asterisk (*) indicates an insufficient numberofresponses 10show cost information; NA means in/ormation not availabte.t

tion costs in the Piedmont and otherupland regions were slightly higherthan the Coastal Plain-$0.74compared with $0.62 per acre($1.83/ha compared with $1.53/ha).The overall average cost of fireprotection varied by type of organiza­tion. State agencies had the highest at$0.71, followed by Federal agencies at$0.62, and the forest industry at $0.41per acre ($1.75, $1.53, and $1.01/ha).Differences in fire protection costsmay be attributed to missions of eachorganization. State agencies have amore defined mission of fire protec­tion compared with Federal agenciesand forest industries. Consequently,their operating budgets reflect agreater emphasis on fire protection.Additionally, forest industries relymore heavily on State agencies forprotection.

Detection Systems. As firedetection has shifted from tower-basedto air-based systems, dollars havebeen saved. The overall average costof fire protection for those using air­based detection systems was lowerthan those for tower-based systems­$0.34 as compared with $0.50 per acre($0.84/ha compared with $1.23/ha)(fig. 6). Within the forest industry,costs for air-tower detection systemswere just slightly higher than thosethat use air detection only-$0.27 com­pared with $0.25 per acre ($0.67/hacompared with $0.62/ha)-but air­based system costs were substantiallylower than the $0.50 per acre ($1.23/hal for tower systems.

Crawler Tractor Size. Fireprotection costs decline with increas­ing size of crawler tractor (fig. 7). Forthose survey respondents using a smalltractor, overall fire protection costs per

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 23

Figure &-Cost components (percent) for generalfire protection by type of organization.

Survey of Forest Practices in the SouthInformation contained in this article was gathered from an ongoing

survey that provides detailed forest practice and cost information on forestpractice activities:• Site preparation• Tree planting• Controlledburning• Chemical treatments• Fertilizer treatments• General fire protection• Timber cruising• Timber marking• PrecommerciaI thinning

The survey has been continuous since 1952-it is the oldest ongoingsurvey on forest practices. Those surveyed include forestry consultants andforestry managers associated with Federal and State agencies as well asthe forest industry in the Southern United States. The 1990 survey resultedin 147 responses with 47 percent from the forest industry, 29 percent fromforestry consultants. and 24 percent from public agencies (Dubois,Watson, Straka, Belli 1991). Personnel from the Department of Forestry,Mississippi State University, have conducted the survey since the late1960's, and current surveys are published every 2 years in the ForestFarmer. For more information about the survey, contact Mark Dubois,(601) 325·2946.

Forestindustry

~ OverheadD Supervision

StateFederal

• Labor §8§ Equipment

Fire Protection Trends, Missions,and Their Ties to Cost

State agencies have the majorresponsibility for forest land fireprotection in the Southern United

acre averaged $0.78 ($1.93/ha). Thiscompares with the $0.54 and $0.27cost per acre ($1.33/ha and $0.67/ha)for medium and large crawler tractors,respectively. Several factors mayinfluence these costs:• Larger equipment is more efficient

in constructing fireline,• Smaller tractors may be used only

for fire suppression, thus fireprotection bears all costs.

• Larger equipment may be used forseveral forest operations, so fireprotection costs are only a portionof the equipment cost.Cost Components. Figure 8

disaggregates fire protection costs intolabor, equipment, supervision. andoverhead components by type oforganization. Differences in compo­nent costs can be attributed to organi­zational management objectives.Federal agencies and forest industrieshave a more diverse set of manage­ment objectives compared with Stateforest agencies. State forest agencieshave a relatively heavier emphasis onfire protection. Consequently, Stateagencies' labor and supervision costsfor fire protection should be relativelyhigher than those for Federal agenciesand the private forest industry. Laborand supervision costs accounted for 79percent of the total fire protectioncosts for State agencies. This com­pares with 44 and 47 percent forFederal agencies and the forestindustry, respectively.

24 Fire Management Notes

v,

'\

,

I.

States. The forest industry appears tohave shifted some of its fire protectionactivities to State agencies. At thesame time, fire detection systems haveshifted from ground-based towersystems to air-based detectionsystems. Crawler tractors continue toplaya major role in the South's firesuppression systems.

The overall cost of fire protectionaveraged $0.64 per acre ($1.58/ha) in1990. The missions of fire protectionorganizations affected the averagecosts: State agencies were highest at$0.71 per acre ($1.75/ha), followed byFederal agencies at $0.62 per acre($1.53/ha), and forest industry at$0.41 per acre ($I.Ol/ha). When tiredetection shifted from lower-based to

air-based systems, costs were reducedfrom $0.50 to $0.34 per acre ($1.23/hato $0.84/ hal. Labor costs comprised asubstantial component of total fireprotection costs regardless of organi­zation type. In times of dwindlingoperating budgets, labor costs andhow they are controlled become evermore important to managers and thefuture cost of fire protection.•

Literature Cited

Dubois, M.R., Straka, T.J. and Watson, T.J.1991. A cost index for Southern forestpractices. Southern Journal of AppliedForestry. 15(3):128-133.

Dubois, M.R., Watson, W.F .. Straka. TJ., andBelli, K.L. 1991. Costs and cost trends forforestry practices in the South. ForestFarmer 28th Manual Edition. 5R(3):26-32.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

A New Ordering Systemfor Cooperative Forest FirePrevention (Smokey Bear)Materials

In November 1991, Fire andAviation Management AssistantDirector Mary Jo Lavin appointed theCooperative Forest Fire PreventionOrdering System Task Force to devisea new system for ordering SmokeyBear fire prevention materials. Thetask force, chaired by Fire PlanningProgram Analyst Jerilyn Levi,recommended that we add the orderingsystem to the National Fire CacheSystem. State and Private ForestryDeputy Chief Allan J. West approvedthe task force recommendation in June1992.

The new system will allow year­round ordering of prevention materialsfor Federal and State agency usersanywhere in the United States. TheForest Service anticipates improvedcost efficiency and turnaround time fororders.

By January 1993, materials will beavailable for order from the NortheastInteragency Fire Cache in GrandRapids, MN. Using its warehousespace, computerized inventory systems.and shipping and receiving capabilities,the cache will store Smokey Bearitems, take orders, and make shipments.Minnesota Shared Services of theSuperior National Forest will purchaseitems from contractors and vendors tokeep the cache stocked.

The selection of items to be offeredthrough the catalog and the productionof the catalog will remain in theWashington Office.

Look for your 1993 CooperativeForest Fire Prevention catalog andordering instructions to arrive inNovember 1992.•

Tammy J. West, programspecialist, USDA Forest Service, Fireand Aviation Management,Cooperative Forest Fire PreventionProgram, Washington, DC

25

Texas Forest Service Calling Dozer-OneBill Terry

Head, Training Section. Texas Forest Service, Lufkin, TX

"f

II

Student dozer operators unload plow units to begin the first training exercise. This is the first formallyorganized wildland fircfighting unit in Texas-soutside of the Texas or USDA Forest Service. Photocourtesy ofBill Terry. Texas Forest Service.

Not many city and county firedepartments in Texas own a bulldozer(a crawler tractor with a bladeattached, commonly referred to as adozer). For years, the State used dozerplow units for fireline construction inEast Texas, but there was no formalagreement between a volunteer firedepartment and the Texas ForestService (TFS). "Dozer-One" haschanged all that.

What is Dozer-One?

Since March I, 1991, Dozer-Onehas been a joint program between theTFS and the Bastrop Fire Departmentto improve fire protection for locallandowners. (Bastrop. county seat ofBastrop County, is in eastern Texas,slightly southeast of Austin, the TexasState capita!.) The TFS and theBastrop Fire Department entered intoan agreement, or contract, to "en­hance, improve, and formalize theTexas Forest Service-Fire Departmentorganization and operation on for­ested, nonforested, and rural lands inBastrop and surrounding counties."The agreement spells out how thesystem will work:• When the need arises, the TFS

requests help from the Bastrop FireDepartment,

• The TFS furnishes all the equip­ment including the tractor, truck,radio, clothing, and training. Theyalso pay a small hourly wage tospecially trained volunteerfirefighters.

• In return, the Bastrop Fire Depart­ment furnishes at least two trainedand experienced firefighters to beon standby during dry, high-dangerperiods. The program helps the

county by adding another fire unitin the form of Dozer-One. It helpsthe TFS by supplying additionalfirefighters to do the work.

Why Was It Needed?

Jim Blott, area forester with theTFS, has seen the number of theirfirefighters reduced almost 30 percentsince 1978. While the TFS firefightingstaff was shrinking, Bastrop andcounties like it were experiencing aphenomenal growth in population.Newcomers were locating their homeswell off roads that are not accessiblewith conventional fire equipment.Also, because much of BastropCounty is forested, special equipmentis often required to build firelines anddeal with the rough terrain. Accordingto Mike Fisher, chief of the Bastrop

Fire Department, "For two or threeseasons, we had so many fires, theForest Service resource was notadequate. We had a county dozer forabout 10 years, but that alone didn'tseem to be enough." Statewide, thereare many counties and communitiesthat have the same problems.

In May 1984, a fire swept throughthe Bastrop County "Lost Pines"region, an ecologically distinct forestregion located outside of the tradi­tional commercial forest region ofEast Texas where agency firefightersare concentrated. The Lost Pines areais a difficult area for the TFS toprotect. "We have an extremelyisolated condition in Bastrop County,"forester Blott remarked. "With theclosest units located in Montgomeryand Walker Counties, our responsetime can be slow." During the 4-day

.'

I~

26 Fire Managemenl Notes

\.'

't

'I

'.

siege, thousands of acres were burned.Remnants of the tire can still be seennear Highway 71 between Bastrop andSmithville.

Although most residents considerthe "Lost Pines" region a special casebecause of its ecology, there is over$109 billion worth of improvedproperty in rural Texas. Much of thisis either range, forest, crops, orstructures. The 1984 fire was so largethat the TFS overhead personnel, firedepartment personnel, and NationalGuard helicopters were combined toform a huge firefighting force. Acommand post was established and theIncident Command System was used.

It was this fire that helped convincethe TFS that an alternative had to bedeveloped to protect, in the future, theresources. people, and property ofBastrop and the surrounding area.With tax shortfalls predicted for theTFS for at least the next 2 years, thesituation would. only get worse.

Advantages of Dozer-One

"Dozer-One allows us to beef upour response time because we canwork with a supplemental pool offirefighters until our units can move infrom the other districts," said Blott.

Chief Fisher feels that Dozer-One. has helped out tremendously on fires

in the county. "One of the spin-offs ofthis program," he said, "is that it is agreat opportunity for some of ourfirefighters. It gives them moreincentive and something else to beinterested in." He added, "We usedDozer-One as a training or skilldevelopment tool where thefirefighters had to meet certainstructural firefighting criteria before

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

Dozer-One is a joint programbetween the Texas Forest Serviceand the Bastrop Fire Department toimprove fire protection for locallandowners. The Texas ForestService furnishes all the equipment(the tractor, truck, radio, clothing)and training, and the Bastrop FireDepartment, at least two trainedand experienced firefighters to beon standby during dry, high-dangerperiods.

they could panicipate in the Dozer­One program. It has moved our totalprogram along."

He added that there was stillanother benefit, "Having the dozer anda trained crew has almost eliminatedthe need for the little four-wheel drive,off-road brush truck and has saved agreat deal of wear on other vehicles."

Ronnie Duncan, a Bastropfirefighter participating in the Dozer­One program, said, "Using this dozeris better than getting out there withhandtools and dragging hose throughthe woods. We let the equipment dothe work."

Vicki Graffinberg, a firefighterfrom the Heart of the Pines FireDepartment located near Bastrop,says, "If someone is at a fire and theyneed someone to operate the dozer, Iwant to be able to do it."

Outlook for Future Agreements

There is a possibility of a futureagreement between Bastrop Countyand the Bastrop Fire Department.While this is somewhat different fromthe agreement between the TFS andBastrop Fire Department, the county

will agree to furnish the dozer and thecounty fire departments will furnishthe people. This may be a good fireprotection option for other countiesacross the country.

"We have asked the county forsome help," says Fisher. "We havefirst of all asked for some funding.Then we have asked for some 'inkind' services such as permittingcounty employees to becomefirefighters for daytime help." Heconcludes, "The commissioners haveagreed they can divert some of theirdozers, loaders, and even water trucksto help on the bigger fires, Even if wehad a bunch of little wild fires, theycould keep us from being spread toothin."

In the past year, Travis County, thelocation of the State's capital, hasdeveloped a similar agreement wherethe county supplies up to four piecesof equipment for line construction toassist the fire departments on largewildfires, The TFS has also trainedcounty employees in line constructionto fonn a heavy-equipment striketeam. The result is a better preparedfirefighting task force to protect livesand property in the rural and interfaceareas.

The Results: Economy, Pride, andBetter Protection

With more government programscoming under the "gun," doing morewith less is probably the way of thefuture. Programs like Dozer-One willnot only help reduce the tax burdens,but also will produce a pride in thecommunity and a pride in service thattax dollars simply cannot buy, •

27

Evaluation of the Hanover" Firefighterin the Swamps of Southeast GeorgiaAlan Dozier and Bill Fyfe

Associate chief, Forest Protection Department, Georgia Forestry Commission,Macon, GA, and president, GR. Manufacturing, Inc., Trussville, AL

GEORGIAFORESTRYCO ~

~Afl'il":l"

Rear frame extension and housing for pump, hose manifold and booster reel, and nose.

In October 1989, the firstHanover" Firefighter ' was displayedat the National Association of StateForesters' meeting in San Antonio,TX. This articulated, four-wheel drivemachine is similar in configuration toa timber forwarder. It was manufac­tured by the fanner Robbins Manufac­turing, Inc., in Birmingham, AL. JohnMixon, Georgia's State Forester,immediately recognized that the highflotation and large water capacity ofthis unit could have proven useful incombating wildfires in the swamps ofsoutheast Georgia. He made arrange­ments through the Forest ProtectionDepartment of the Georgia ForestryCommission (GFC) to evaluate thismachine in Georgia.

An initial agreement between theGFC and Robbins Manufacturing,Inc., was made that included thefollowing:• Robbins would provide the basic

machine with a I,200-gallon(4,542 L) tank but with no pumpingor spraying equipment.

• The GFC would select and furnishpumping and spraying equipmentand provide the expertise and staffto install the equipment. GFCwould also conduct trials of themachine and demonstrate it tointerested parties.

• The GFC would have unlimited useof the machine through the springfire season. After that, Robbinswould be able to use and demon­strate the fully equipped machine tointerested parties outside Georgia.

'The use of trade names does not constituteofficial endorsement of the product by theUSDA Forest Service.

28

f~-

b'··-_.--. -'..'" .. '~-.>-- -

",.".. ~..-

In November, the machine wasdelivered to the GFC, headquarteredin Macon. In addition to the largetank, it was equipped with an 89horsepower Ford diesel engine and 66x 43,00-25 tires. It was obvious that itcould easily be built to a specificconfiguration by varying wheelbase,tire size, tank size, and pump orspraying equipment.

The GFC's Rural Fire Defensespecialists and fabrication shop wentto work to equip the Hanover with a25 FR Hale pump, a foam injectionsystem, a multiport hose manifold,l-inch (2 1/2-cm) booster hose andreel, I 1/2-inch (4-cm) deck gunmonitor, two downs wept 12/24 gallon­(45191-L) per-minute (gpm) nozzles, adeck gun operator's station, and brushprotection for the spray equipment. InJanuary, the GFC made the first trialrun and completed final adjustments.

The Modified Unit on Trial inSwamps

In February, the newly equippedunit was delivered to the WaycrossDistrict in southeast Georgia. Thisarea has a high fire-incident ratecombined with typical southerncoastal fuel types and terrain. A pineplantation with a palmetto-gallberryunderstory covers one-third of thedistrict's land area. The remainingforested area consists of natural pine,hardwood bays, cypress ponds, andpeat swamps. Fires occurring in thebays and swamps in the dry periodspose special problems because poorunderfooting prevents the use oftractor plow units in these areas. Thelarge fire acreages involved, combinedwith dense vegetation and poorunderfooting, make mopup proceduresdifficult at best. The new unit pro­vided the option to use direct attack as

Fire Management Notes

Deck gun monitor and booster hose cool hotspots at peat fire at Hinesville, GA.

"

well as effective mopup tactics on thistype of fire.

The Dixon State Forest was the siteof the first trial for the unit. It drafted1,200 gallons (4,542 L) of water froma canal in 5.7 minutes. The machinewas first operated in a typical pinestand to familiarize its operators withits maneuverability and water­handling capability. The sandy forestfloor underneath the palmetto­gallberry understory was left undis­turbed except for the cleats of the66 x 43.00-25 forestry tires penetrat­ing the soil.

The machine was next driven to agum-cypress swamp that had burnedthe previous year. It carried the load ofwater through muck that a tractorplow unit could not negotiate. Waterquickly filled the 2-foot (60-cm) deeptracks left by the large flotation tires.

Another trial was arranged for lateFebruary near Waycross-this time as

Those who attended the Okefenokeedemonstration were impressed bythe machine's ability to draft andtransport water at speeds up to 14miles per hour on the perimeterroad and for some distance into theswamp's edge.

a demonstration to GFC fire personnelfrom the coastal districts. Again themachine negotiated the previously off­limits terrain as the two downsweptnozzles laid down lines of foam. LarryWatson, Ware County forest ranger,remarked, "This thing will go anyplace that we have any businessfighting a fire!" Firefighters took turnsoperating the machine with onedriving and another operating theI 1/2-inch (4-cm) turret-type nozzlefrom the operator's platform. Themachine demonstrated its fire­quenching ability by delivering a

direct stream of foam with a reach inexcess of 60 feet (18 m). The bubblecup nozzle could be adjusted toproduce a wide blanket of foam aswell as a straight stream. The 12/24gpm downswept nozzles on each sidenot only laid lines of foam. but theyalso provided fire protection for thetires, The Hanover''>"s ability to pumpand roll through forested terrainimpressed the GFC tractor plowoperators.

Late in February, the unit was fieldtested in Georgia's RoundaboutSwamp near Pearson, GA. This 3,000­acre (1 ,2 I4-ha) swamp with anaverage peat depth of 8 feet (2.4 m)has been the site of several projectfires in recent years. Although themost recent Roundabout fire con­sumed only 52 acres (21 hal,firefighters spent more than 4 weekslaying hose and pumping an estimated2 million gallons (over 7 1/2 million L)of water from existing canals to drenchthe peat fire.

A main goal of this particular fieldtest was to maneuver the machine intoincreasingly poor underfooting untilthe machine was bogged down andunable to move. The machine maneu­vered well through any area withenough vegetation and root mass togive it traction. A prairie-type areaproved to be its nemesis, however,because the lack of vegetation causedthe machine to sink into the mud.

The unit was next demonstrated tothe U.S. Department of the InteriorFish and Wildlife Service and severalUSDA Forest Service representativesusing the Okefenokee National Refugeas a demonstration site. Several firesin this 400.000-acre (161 ,880-ha)wilderness swamp had recently

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 29

F

Hanover' demonstration at Okefenokee Swamp Refuge.

t C£ and was in use when the unit arrived.The presence of the hose on theground did not restrict the unit'smobility because tires (which had alow ground pressure) could drive overthe hose without causing any apparentdamage.

The Unit in North Carolina

After the evaluation in southeastGeorgia, the machine went on trial inthe mountain region of western NorthCarolina. Although the evaluation wasnot as extensive as the one in Georgia,the machine did handle the water loadsafely on the steep slopes, indicatingits potential to work in this environ­ment.

Advantages of the Unit

\'I,I

threatened structures, campgrounds.and private timber. The unit negoti­ated the edge of the Okefenokee well.Those who attended this demonstra­tion were impressed by the machine'sability to draft and transport water atspeeds up to 14 miles per hour(23 kph) on the perimeter road and forsome distance into the swamp's edge.Participants were also impressed withhow quickly and easily they becamecomfortable operating this machine.

The Unit's Trial by Fire

The unit was next deployed to a 15­acre (6-ha) peat fire in Hinesville, GA.Initial attack was complete, and thisfire was in the mopup stage when themachine arrived. Tractor plow unitshad been used to contain the fire, butmany hotspots remained inside theperimeter. The normal mode ofoperation on this type of fire has been

30

either to let it bum until sufficientrainfall occurs or to lay hose into thehotspots to put them out. Because thisfire was located in a wildland-urbaninterface, the decision was made todrench the hotspots with water.

Using the mobility and rapidresponse of the unit, the crew was ableto move instantly to areas of mosturgent need. A crew of three operatedthe unit: a driver. deck gun operator,and spotter on the ground, who alsoused the booster hose. Utilizing thelarge tank capacity. the crew wouldtypically work hotspots for about 40minutes and then spend 10minutesgoing to and from the city hydrant forrefilling.

This fire provided an opportunityfor the machine to work side by sidewith a hose lay operation. Approxi­mately 2,000 feet (609 m) of 2 1/2inch- (o-cm), I 1/2 inch- (4-cm), and Iinch- (2.S-crn) hose had been laid out

Comparing use of this unit to aconventional hose-laying, mopupoperation, the following points areworth noting:• Less equipment is required. The

one Hanover" can perform inplace of a stationary pumper, hoselays, and miscellaneous supportequipment.

• Far fewer firefighters are required.A crew of three operated twonozzles (a ratio of 1.5: I). Bycontrast, the hose crews requiredfour firefighters to operate onenozzle (a ratio of 4: I).

• Response time to flare ups isreduced. The Hanover" canquickly respond to hotspots. Thereis no time spent picking-up and re­laying hose. The machine simplydrives to the hotspot, knocks itdown, and then moves on to thenext problem.

Fire Management Notes

I~

From right to left are L.A. (Mic) Amicarella, Staff Director. Fire Aviationand Management. Forest Servia; awardee Dr. Putnam, equipmentspecialist. Missoula Technology and Development Center, Forest Service;Mrs. Putnam; and Boh Joens, branch chief, Fire Equipment and Chemicals.Fire Aviation and Management, Forest Service.

,j

• Demobilization time is reduced.Once the machine is loaded on alowboy trailer, it is ready to go onto the next fire or return to base.There is no hose to be cleaned,dried, and stored.

• The Hanover" provides an extralevel of security in the wildland­urban interface because it canmaneuver, uninhibited, from yard

Ted Putnam Honoredfor Fire SafetyAccomplishments

USDA Forest Service equipmentspecialist at the Missoula Technologyand Development Center (MTDC), Dr.Stuart E. "Ted" Putnam was recentlyhonored with two national awards forhis work in designing and testingpersonal protective equipment forwildland firefighters. This past springPutnam was awarded the Government

to yard to help protect houses.

Evaluation and Future Options

The GFC had envisioned this unitas an ideal machine for mopupoperations in low ground-pressureconditions. Its use on the Hinesvillefire confirmed that it can efficientlydeliver large volumes of water, foam,

Employees Insurance Company(GEICO) Public Service Award in FirePrevention and Safety, and thissummer, the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) DistinguishedService Award for Safety and Health.Putnam, who has been with MTDCsince 1976. pioneered the developmentof the fire shelter, an aluminum puptent that has saved the lives of manywildland firefighters.

The GEICO Public Service Awardsare presented annually to four civilian

career Federalemployees andone retiredFederaJemployee foroutstandingachievementsin publicservice. TheUSDA HonorAwards arepresented to

USDAemployees foroutstandingaccomplish­ments.

or both in a timely manner. Thisperformance encourages the GFC toevaluate its use in initial attack at thefirst opportunity. For more infonna­tion about the modification of the unitor its use, please contact Alan Dozierof the GFC at (912) 751-3492 or BillFyfe at G.R. Manufacturing, Inc.,(205) 655-8001. •

Under Putnam's leadership at theMTDC, new technology has been usedto develop, refine, and improve flame­resistant clothing, protective leathergloves, and most significantly, the fireshelter, for wildland firefighters. Theshelter has been credited with savingthe lives of more than 200 entrappedwildland firefighters since 1977.Putnam. who has been a firefighter anda smokejumper, has combined bothscientific expertise and practical fieldexperience in the development ofprotective equipment, which earnedhim an international reputation as anexpert in this field.

Putnam not onJy designs protectivegear but also is active in field reviewsand evaluations of equipmentperformance and in the development ofteaching materials for wildlandfirefighters. He also serves on theNational Fire Protection Association'sWildland Fire Fighting ProtectiveClothing Subcommittee, a body that isdeveloping standards that will affectmore than 350,000 firefighters .•

Brendan Tu and Enid Hodes,respectively. graduate student atColorado State University, USDAForest Service. Rocky Mountain Region.Air, Aviation, and Fire Management,Cooperative Education Program,Lakewood, CO, and editor. USDAForest Service, Public Affairs Office.

"

IIl..

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 31

Rx for Flexibility During Budget Unrest:Contract for an Initial Action EngineMark Beighley

Fire management officer, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest,Bend Ranger District, Bend, OR

In the fan of 1990, the PacificNorthwest Region of the USDA ForestService projected an overall decreasein its budget for the next 2 years. Inresponse, management directed thatthe fixed organization be reducedwhenever possible-without areduction in force. At that time, thelevel of financing for the Bend RangerDistrict fire suppression organizationallowed the funding of four initialaction engine modules: three fromForest Fire Fighting Protection (FFFP)funding and one from Brush Disposal(BD) deposits from timber sales (toprovide interim protection in har­vested areas until logging slash istreated to acceptable levels). When thecrew leader position on one of theengines on the Bend District becamevacant, the chance was given toexplore alternative methods ofproviding that engine module withoutany adverse effects on permanentseasonal personnel.

Oregon Department of Forestry, andWashington Department of NaturalResources, decided to try a new idea.Why not contract for call-when­needed (CWN) engines and watertenders? Contractors would bidcompetitively on rental rates whenproviding equipment and trainedpersonnel for firefighting, possiblyreducing the cost of some items andgenerating rates common to all useragencies.

It seemed reasonable to take thesame idea one step further and attemptto contract for a complete initial action(IA) engine module, truck, and trainedfirefighters to be on duty for adesignated time during fire season.The bids could then be made based ona guaranteed amount of work, some­thing not possible with the NorthwestInteragency contract. Initial reactionsof local Forest Service fire personnelcan be described as "apprehensive,"

but it was an alternative to thetraditional approach of hiring ForestService employees to staff a ForestService engine. The Deschutes ForestSupervisor and the Bend DistrictRanger encouraged the concept, andthe effort was given the green light.

Following are the concerns thatsurfaced:• The cost of the contract would be

higher compared to traditionalstaffing of Forest Service engineswith hired employees.

• The quality of the equipment andthe skill and experience of thefirefighters would not be as high asusual.

• There would not be as muchmanagement flexibility forcontrolling duty hours and workschedules.

• There might be an increasedfrequency of arson fires forfinancial gain.

J

)\

Cherub's Fire Control (contractor) Tvpe 6 engine.

The Contracting Experience and theDecisionmaking Process

Contracting for firefighters for useon Forest Service engines had beensuccessful on the Winema NationalForest several years earlier during asimilar period of workforce reduction.The hiring of firefighting operatorsand equipment had been a commonpractice of the Forest Service onEmergency Equipment RentalAgreements. However, this hiring hadbeen based on rates fixed by theGovernment as opposed to rates bidby contractors. A Northwest Inter­agency Committee, representing theForest Service, U.S. Department of theInterior Bureau of Land Management,

32

." . ·0'. -~.,,:",'.

Fire Management Notes

• There will be additional costs ofcontract development and adminis­tration.Of course, others pointed out that if

this effort succeeded, there would besome obvious benefits:• There would be a reduction in the

Government employee workforce.• The contractor would handle the

hiring, firing, timekeeping,training, and other personnel­related workload,

• Accidents and injury reporting andclaims would be the responsibilityof the contractor.

Contract Specifications

In order to maintain some level ofstandardization, the Bend District fAengine contract used the NorthwestInteragency contract specifications fora Type 6 engine, equipment, and

Typical Forest Service Type 6 engine.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

personnel training. The Governmentwould provide equipment, such ashose and fittings, that would normallybe left on fires for more than the initialoperational period. The contractorcould then immediately resupply, fromany Government cache, items theywere directed to leave on a fire. Also,the engine was to be used on fires onlywhen a Forest Service officer wasassigned as the Incident Commanderor when assigned to a Forest Servicestrike team. The contract inspectionduties could then be assumed by theIncident Commander or strike teamleader, and the assignments given tothe engine contractually became awork order. This facilitated equipmentaccountability and contract adminis­tration needs while the engine wastemporarily assigned away from itsnormal operating area.

Contract Flexibility

The contract was developed toprovide a minimum of 77 days'coverage within the mandatorycontract period-from June 24, 1991,though September 28, 1991, Thiscoverage included the engine, anoperator, and a firefighter, When thefire danger was at a "low" level, itwould be at the discretion of the firemanager whether the engine would beon- or off-duty on any given day,When the fire danger rose to a"moderate" level, two staff membersand the engine were required to be onduty from 0930 to 1800, After Au­gust I, on days when the fire dangerreached a "high" or "extreme" level, asecond firefighter was required(producing a total staff of three), Thecontract estimated that these situationswould occur a minimum of 25 daysduring the mandatory contract period.At the "extreme" fire-danger level, theengine was usually kept on duty anadditional hour, until 1900, but thiswas not originally written in as acontract specification. This cost wasaccounted for in the bid item for 300overtime hours. A moderate amount offlexibility was written into the contractso that staffing could be responsive tofluctuations in fire-danger levels,providing efficient utilization of theresource.

Estimating Contract Costs

The cost estimates worked up forthe contract were based on localexperience, using comparable ForestService equipment rates, Table Idisplays the contract cost estimated bythe Forest Service, The 300 overtime

33

hours (hours worked outside the 0930to 1800 period) were included in thecontract as an estimate. Therefore, theForest Service was not obligated topay the entire amount unless staffactually worked as ordered.

A total of II contractors placedbids. Three of the II were non­responsive to the bid and could not beconsidered. The remaining eight bidswere as follows: $41,610.00,$42,694.19, $53,240.60, $58,548.92,$59,456.69, $62,766.75, $64,759.95and $81,656.00.

Awarding the Bid

The eight bids were far greater thanthe Government-estimated cost of thecontract (table I). Since overtime pay(item I.D) is only an estimate and isgenerally accrued while on fireassignments. this amount would bepaid mostly out of nondistrict bud­geted emergency funds (FFFF).

In 1991, the Bend Ranger District,Deschutes National Forest,contracted for a complete initialaction engine module, truck, andtrained firefighters to be on duty fora designated time during fireseason. The success of that projecthas encouraged them to continuewith another improved contract forthe 1992 fire season.

Excluding the overtime estimate, thepotential financial burden on thedistrict fire protection budget could beroughly estimated at $25,860, muchcloser to the contract estimate of$21,458. Additionally, some of thecost of a Type 6 engine with engineboss and crew member, one additionalcrew member. and mileage (items I.A,I.B, and l.C) would, in all probability,be paid out of FFFF funds. The entirecontract bid price did exist in thedistrict budget. Based on this ration-

ale, the contract was awarded toCherub's Fire Control of Bend, OR,the low bidder. Table 2 displays theactual bid awarded.

Evaluating the Engines

As stated earlier, the comparativeeffectiveness of the contract initialaction engines versus traditionalstaffing by Forest Service employeeswas a concern. Would contractengines perform as well as ForestService staffed engines? Could theyperform at a satisfactory level? Thefire staff on the Deschutes NationalForest measures the comparableperformance of engine crews eachsummer by conducting an engineproficiency review. Since a mecha­nism existed to review proficiency,management decided to put thecontract engine through the same drillsas the Forest Service engines and letthe fire staff objectively evaluate its

Table l-USDA Forest Service estimates for supplies, services. and costs when contracting for an initial action engine module

Name of offeror or contractor: USDA Forest Service estimate

ItemNo. Supplies and services Quantity Unit Unit price Amount

1.A One Type 6 engine with oneengine boss and one crewmemberJune 24 to Sept. 28, 1991 77 Days $160.00 $ 12,320

1.B One additional crewmember toperform with engine listedin 1,A above from Aug, 1 toSept. 28, 1991 25 Days 64.00 1,600

1.C Mileage 6,750 Miles 0.45 3,038

1.D Overtime 300 Hours 15.00 4,500

$ 21 ,458

34 Fire Management Notes

/

Table 2--Low bidder estimates for supplying an initial action engine module

tName of offeror or contractor: Bid award

ItemNo. Supplies and services Quantity Unit Unit price Amount

" 1.A One Type 6 engine with oneengine boss and one crewmemberJune 24 to Sept. 28, 1991 77 Days $ 280.00 $ 21,560

l.B One additional crewmember toperform with engine listedin 1.A above from Aug. 1 toSept 28, 199t 25 Days 64.00 1,600

l.C Mileage 6,750 Miles 0.40 2,700

1.D Overtime 300 Hours 52.50 15,750

$41,610

Table 3-Evaluation of USDA Forest Service engines and the contract engine

Forest Forest ForestEngine proficiency Service Service Service Contractreview elements engine engine engine engine

1-5 t-6 1-7 1-9(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

Certification of crew 80 93 60 50

Satety 100 100 93 91

Strategy and tactics 83 92 92 58

Forest Service policy 100 100 100 N/A'

Vehicle equipment and maintenance 97 100 83 83

Map reading and compass use 67 56 56 22

.\ Chainsaw safety 100 94 100 65

Tree felling and bucking 100 95 85 100'

Handtool use and maintenance 88 86 88 49

Hoselays and water use 80 100 100

Total score, percent of maximum allowed 91.3 91.8 85.9 67.3

'Some review elements were not addressed in the contract specifications, so they were not included in the review for the contract engine. Two examples were "Forest Service Policy" and"Tree Felling and Bucking." A Forest Service officer was required to be the Incident Commander on all fires when the contract engine responded. Also the contract does not mention thetQlUng of trees-and the contract engine was instructed specifically not to fell trees-therefore only the bucking of logs was included.

en-ere was not sufficient time to perform the hoselay drill on the contract engine.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 35

Table 4---Costs ofa Forest Service engine module' for the same period as the contract engine wasused

'All figures are based on actual 1991 costs incurred by the Bend Ranger District for similar equipment and staffing. Whenmaking cost comparisons, it is often difficult to include all the "hidden" costs associated with the Government workforce.Types of associate costs unaccounted for include: Unemployment costs for off-season firefighters, overhead costsassociated with employment (payroll, per diem, office space, etc.). potential Office of Workers' Compensation Programscosts (a large, long-term expense if an injury occurred).

Supplies and services Unit and cost per unit Amount

Engine operator and crew leader (GS-S) 86 days x $95/day $7.912

Skilled firefighter No.1 (GS-4) 86 days x $62/day 5.332

Skilled firefighter No.2 (GS-4) 58 days x $62/day 3,596

Overtime for above crew of 3 77 hours x $40/hour 3.080

Type 6 engine fixed operating rate 12 months x $250/month 3.000

Mileage cost 9,552 miles x $O.39/mile 3.725

Total comparative cost $26.645

performance, knowledge, and skilllevel. This evaluation occurred onJuly 19, just 7 days after the contractengine started work. The results of thetesting are displayed in table 3.

Some general comments reflectinga tailgate analysis of the results were:• The contract engine and crew

performed at a significantly lowerlevel than the engines staffed byForest Service employees.

• The performance of the contractengine and crew was not consid­ered to be unsafe, merely lessefficient and less skilled.It was not difficult to understand

why the Forest Service engines scoredmuch higher than the contract engine.The Forest Service engine crews hadbeen working together for 4 to 6weeks before the engine proficiencytest, and many of them had workedtogether the previous fire season andwere familiar with the drills. Aninteresting sidelight to the proficiencyreviews-as the "permanency" of theengine leader's appointment deterio­rated, so did the scores of the crewsthey supervised. Forest ServiceEngines 1-5 and 1-6 had leaders withpermanent seasonal appointments,Forest Service Engine 1-7 had a leaderwith a temporary appointment and, ofcourse, the contract engine had aleader with no appointment.

The 1991 fire season on the BendRanger District was moderately busywith 77 fires, 48 to which groundcrews responded (29 fires were staffedwith smokejumpers). The contractengine responded to and took suppres­sion action on 14 fires for a total of178 hours. While not actually fightingfire, the contract engine crew wasinvolved in other resource-related

operations such as road clearing,dispersed recreation patrol, and stationmaintenance.

The final payment documentindicated that the contract engineworked a total of 86 days, 58 of whichrequired a staff of three. They accu­mulated 9,552 miles (15,372 km)driven and 77 hours of overtime. Thefinal cumulative payment total was$35,655. Of this, $8,748 was paid outof emergency firefighting funds(FFFF), and $26,907 was paid out ofdistrict project funds for interim fireprotection.

As displayed in table 4, using thesame days worked, miles driven, andovertime incurred, a similar ForestService engine module would cost$26,645. In some situations dealingwith a short work season, the contractengine option may offer more flexibil­ity, but this may be at a reduced levelof performance and usually at addi­tional, up-front cost.

From the 1991 contract period,there have been no claims for damagesor payment disputes filed against the

Government by Cherub's Fire Control.All things considered, the cost of theservices and equipment providedappears to have been reasonable.

The Evaluation: How Did It WorkOut?

Contracting for an IA engine to beon duty at a designated station or workarea, in lieu of the traditional methodof hiring employees to staff Govern­ment equipment, appears to have beena reasonable alternative when stimu­lated by a need for workforce reduc­tion. There are significant tradeoffsthat must be seriously considered.Staffing a fire protection organizationentirely with contracted engines is notrecommended.

Reduced performance at highercost can be expected, compared withtraditional employee staffing ofGovernment engines. It is not ex­pected that the performance of thecontract engine would increasesignificantly over time, unless thecontractor has a stable program that

36 Fire Management Notes

Pump and plumbing configuration on Type 6 Cherub's Fire Control engine.

)'

'/

attracts the same firefighters to returneach year. This, of course, is outsidethe control of Government manage­ment since the bid price generallycontrols which contractor would behired,

Management flexibility wasadequate with the engine contract, andin short season situations, may exceedthat of Government crews. Duringshort periods of low fire danger, thecontract engine could be placed out­of-service for several days savingdollars for when it is needed duringperiods of higher fire danger. Thecontract engine could also be anattractive alternative when a protec­tion organization needs to be "beefedup" when fire danger is expected to beat its worst.

The Deschutes National Forest hasexperienced a very high ratio ofsuspected arson fires to total human­caused fires over the past two fireseasons. None of these fires has yet tobe attributed to an engine contractor.Investigations on many of these fireshave been inconclusive in identifyingan exact cause. Any attempt todetermine a cause-effect relationshipregarding the use of contract engineson the Deschutes National Forest withthe frequency of suspected arson fireswould be purely speculative.

Fire Season Update-1992

For 1992, the Bend District againhired a short-term IA engine oncontract for the fire season. Thedistrict revised the 1992 contractspecifications based on what waslearned in 199 L For example:• Tank design. The new contract

requires that tanks be baffled and

the maximum capacity of the tank,when full, not exceed the grossvehicle weight (OVW) of thevehicle it is mounted on. The 1991contract engine was mounted witha 300-gallon (1,136-L) unbaffledtank. The contract required a tankminimum capacity of 200 gallons(757 L). When the tank was filledwith the higher amount of water,the OVW was exceeded. When thetank was filled with the lesseramount, the water shifted position,constantly changing the vehicle'shandling characteristics. It alsotended to make the vehicle "lurch"forward when the driver tried tomake a quick stop. Both situationscould lead to accidents in tightdriving situations.

• Equipment storage. The 1992contract requires a separate,dedicated storage compartment forhose. The wording in the 1991contract did not require tools andhose to be stored in differentcompartments. Consequently, there

were some hose failures becausethe hose rubbed against the metalparts of tools and other equipmentand became worn.

• Proficiency examination. Beforebeing certified as meeting therequirements for the positions offirefighter and engine boss, allpotential contractor employeesmust pass a proficiency exam.Contractors were considerednonresponsive if they submittedbids without having sufficientqualified personnel (who hadpassed the exam) to staff the engineto contract specifications.The 1992 contract was again

awarded to Cherub's Fire Control withthe low bid of $35,753.04.

Further information on the con­tracting of a full-time IA engine canbe obtained by contacting MarkBeighley, (503) 388-5664 or DanParazoo, contracting officer,Deschutes National Forest,(503) 388-2715.•

1991 Volume 52, Number 4 37

Left to right, Forest Service ChiefF. Dale Robertson, Professional Rodeo Cowhoys AssociationCommissioner Lewis Cryor, Smokey Bear, Nelson/Wearher-Rite President Steven Cohen, andNelson/Weather-Rite ChiefExecutive Officer Melvin Marx.

For Exceptional Forest FirePrevention Efforts: TheGolden, Silver, and BronzeSmokey Bear Awards

Every year, the Cooperative ForestFire Prevention Program ExecutiveCommittee selects winners for theUSDA Forest Service CooperativeForest Fire Prevention awards-theGolden, Silver, and Bronze SmokeyBear Awards. These awards are thehighest forest fire prevention awardsgiven through the Forest Service. Onlythree Golden, five Silver, and tenBronze Smokey Awards can beawarded each year. Each recipientreceives a golden, silver, or bronzestatuette of Smokey Bear.

The Golden Smokey BearAwards. The Golden Smokey BearAwards are presented by the Chief ofthe Forest Service in the WashingtonOffice to individuals or organizationsthat make significant nationalcontributions to the prevention of forestfires over a S-year period. For 1991,two Golden Smokey Bear Awards weregiven-c-one to a business and the otherto a professional association:• The Nelson/Weather-Rite Company:

Sponsored and promoted the JuniorForest Ranger Program, Outdoor FireSafety, and the Smokey Bear symbol,increasing the visibility of theseprograms.

• The Professional Rodeo CowboysAssociation: Sponsored the Smokeyand the American Cowboy Program,which is now active on both the Eastand West Coasts.Silver Smokey Bear Awards. The

Silver Smokey Bear Awards arepresented by the Regional Forester orState Forester, or a representative ofeither, at various special events. Theseawards are presented to individuals or

organizations that have madeoutstanding regional or multistatecontributions in forest fire preventionprograms over a z-ycar period. Thefive 1991 recipients were the following:• The Weyerhauser Company's

Oklahoma-Arkansas TimberlandAreas for their financial and person­nel contributions in delivering the fireprevention message to southeastOklahoma and southwest Arkansas.

• The San Diego Padres for their publicservice advertising contributionsacross all media as well as the annualSan Diego Padre-Smokey Bear FirePrevention Night.

• The Oakland Athletics for theirmultimedia public service advertisingcontributions and the sponsorship ofthe annual Oakland Athletics-SmokeyBear Fire Prevention Night and theFirefighter Appreciation Night.

• The California Angels for theircontributions of multimedia publicservice advertising and the sponsor~

ship of the annual California Angels­Smokey Bear Fire Prevention Night.

• The Fire Prevention Committee of theSierra Front Wildfire Cooperators fortheir long-term interagency efforts infire prevention along the Sierra front.Bronze Smokey Bear Awards. The

Bronze Smokey Bear Awards arepresented at special ceremonies by theRegional Forester or State Forester, or arepresentative of either. These awardsare given to organizations orindividuals that have providedoutstanding statewide service inwildfire prevention for a minimum of 2years. There were eight awardrecipients in 1991:• Rebecca Cabe of the Georgia Forestry

Commission for her development andpresentation of fire preventionprograms used throughout the Statewith civic and church groups, hernews articles. and her radio spots.

• The Florida Arson Alert Associationfor their efforts to inform the publicabout woods arson. and for creating afunding system to pay rewards forinformation leading to the arrest andconviction of woods arsonists.

38 Fire Management Notes

Regional Forester Ron Stewart. Region 5. presenting the Silver Smokey Bear Award toCalifornia Angels' director of marketing and promotions. Bob Wagner.

• James M. Dale, Tennessee Depart­ment of Agriculture, Division ofForestry, for creating and implement­ing a statewide burning permitsystem for trash and debris burningand soliciting Nashville personalitiesto produce fire prevention publicservice advertising to explain themessage.

• Betty Sutton, Texas Forest Service,for her work with school programs infire prevention and safety, creating apuppet show including puppets andaudio that has been used widely inthe State.

• James Whitson, Florida Division ofForestry, for implementing aninteragency fire reduction initiative ineach of the 17 districts of the FloridaDivision of Forestry.

• Charles Schultz, Utah Division ofState Lands and Forestry, for hisoutstanding efforts in fire preventioneducation.

1991 Volume 52, Number 4

• Joseph R. Hughes, New Jersey Bureauof Forest Fire Management, for hislong-term creative contributions to fireprevention, special preventionactivities, and public service advertis­ing with the Middle-Atlantic InterstateForest Fire Protection Compact.

• Richard Just, for his personal initiativein development of a traveling SmokeyBear museum, used in California as afire prevention tool at special events.

Remember To Nominate. Manypeople and organizations are doingwonderful things in forest fireprevention across the Nation. Don'tforget to nominate someone throughyour Regional Forester when the callletter comes out in August. •

Tammy J. West, program

specialist, USDA Forest Service, Fireand Aviation Management, CooperativeForest Fire Prevention Program,

Washington, DC

Every year, every man,woman and child in the UnitedStates consumes the equivalentof a 100foot tree - in lumber,paper products, and things weuse every day That's 200million trees a year. And thedemand is growing every day.

So, the next time you visitthe forest, think about the500 million precious trees wedestroyed last year with carelessfire. Then take an extra minuteto be careful.

The tree you save may be

your own. ~';j'rmA Public ServiceofThisNewspaper~ ,j,\..

8. The Advertising Council ViliI cono

39

Order Processing Code

*6131

United StatesDepartment of AgricultureWashington, DC 20250

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300.

Superintendent of Documents Subscriptions Order Form

Charge your order.It's easy!

o YES, enter my subscription as follows: To fax your orders (202) 512·2233

_subscription(s) to FIRE MANAGEMENT NOTES (FCN) for $6.50 per year ($8.15 forgein).

o New 0 Renewal

The total cost of my order is $ . Price includes regular domestic postage and handling and is subject to change.

,

(Company or Personal Name)(Please type or print)

(Additional address/attention line)

(Street address)

(City, State, ZIP Code)

(Daytime phone including area code)

(Purchase Order No.)

May we make your name/address available to other mailers? o 0Yes No

Please Choose Method of Payment:

o Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents

o GPO Deposit Account nnnnnnn-n

o VISA or Master Card Account

DODD DODD DODD DODDDO DO (Credit card expiration date)

(Authorizing Signature)

Mail to: New' Orders, Superintendent of DocumentsP.O. Box371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

~

':1 '