fire...engine captain directs a hoselay on the rowland fire near contansia, ca. photo: sue mccourt,...

FireManagementtodayVolume 65 • No. 3 • Summer 2005

United States Department of AgricultureForest Service

PERSPECTIVES ONWILDLAND FIREPERSPECTIVES ONWILDLAND FIRE

Fire Management Today is published by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. TheSecretary of Agriculture has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of thepublic business required by law of this Department.

Fire Management Today is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, at:Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: 202-512-1800 Fax: 202-512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

Fire Management Today is available on the World Wide Web at <http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/index.html

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

Dale Bosworth, Chief Robert H. “Hutch” Brown, Ph.D.Forest Service Managing Editor

Tom Harbour, Director Madelyn DillonFire and Aviation Management Editor

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communi-cation of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equalopportunity provider and employer.

Disclaimer: The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience ofthe reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement of any product or service by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Individual authors are responsible for the technical accuracy of the material presented in Fire ManagementToday.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/index.html

CONTENTS

America’s Wildlands: A Future in Peril . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Jerry Williams

A New Look at Wildland/Urban Interface Hazard Reduction. . . 8Jeremy A. Keller

Public Perspectives on the “Wildfire Problem” . . . . . . . . . . . 12Antony S. Cheng and Dennis R. Becker

Building a Landscape-Level Prescribed Fire Program. . . . . . . 16Joseph P. Ferguson

Contrast Modeling and Predicting Fire Behavior . . . . . . . . . 19James K. Barnett

Rapid-Response Fire Behavior Research and Real-Time Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Carol J. Henson

The ABCs of Correctly Mapping a Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Ed Delaney

Aboriginal Burning: Deflating the Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Stephen W. Barrett, Thomas W. Swetnam, and William L. Baker

Long-Term Experiment Takes Some of the Mystery Out of Crown Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Martin E. Alexander

SHORT FEATURES

Ecological Restoration: Two Recent Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Hutch Brown

Websites on Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Treatment Area Saves Ranger Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Paul Keller

Guidelines for Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Annual Photo Contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Volume 65 • No. 3 • Summer 20053

Firefighter and public safety isour first priority.

Volume 65 • No. 3 • Summer 2005Management todayFire

Firefighters size up a blaze onthe Bridger–Teton NationalForest, 23 miles (37 km) southof Jackson, WY. Photo: JedConklin, The SpokesmanReview, Spokane, WA, 2003.

The FIRE 21 symbol (shown below and on thecover) stands for the safe and effective use of wild-land fire, now and throughout the 21st century. Itsshape represents the fire triangle (oxygen, heat,and fuel). The three outer red triangles representthe basic functions of wildland fire organizations(planning, operations, and aviation management),and the three critical aspects of wildland fire man-agement (prevention, suppression, and prescrip-tion). The black interior represents land affectedby fire; the emerging green points symbolize thegrowth, restoration, and sustainability associatedwith fire-adapted ecosystems. The flame representsfire itself as an ever-present force in nature. Formore information on FIRE 21 and the science,research, and innovative thinking behind it, con-tact Mike Apicello, National Interagency FireCenter, 208-387-5460.

On the Cover:

Fire Management Today4

AMERICA’S WILDLANDS: A FUTURE IN PERILJerry Williams

Acrisis is facing our publiclands from the risk ofuncharacteristically severe

wildfire. From the plains of theDakotas to the Sierra Nevada, theexpectations for fire protection inthe Western United States havenever been higher. However, whensocial expectations exceed firefight-ing realities, we have a problem.Despite firefighters’ best efforts—including $1.66 billion in fire sea-son spending in 2002, the mostever—the costs, losses, and dam-ages associated with wildfires havenever been higher. Our experienceswith these kinds of wildfires forceus to look at the predisposing fac-tor: the condition of the land.

Stalled in CrisisI believe that we are witnessing acrisis in fire-adapted ecosystems inthe United States; in fact, I believethat we are “stalled in crisis.” In theUnited States, our most damaging,most costly, and most dangerouswildfires usually occur in the short-interval-fire-adapted forests andgrasslands. In the West, it’s inchaparral, dry-site Douglas-fir,western larch, and long-needle pinetypes such as ponderosa pine. Theseecosystems occupy the lower eleva-tion, warm/dry sites where peopletypically live, work, and play. This iswhere fuels have built up followingdecades of excluding low-intensityfire. Reducing this threat is rightlya USDA Forest Service priority.

We are taking steps to address thiscrisis; we are using prescribed firemore now than ever before. Wesharpened our focus with theNational Fire Plan in 2000, andnow we have new tools for stream-lining the planning process, such asthe Healthy Forests RestorationAct. But the rate of fuel accumula-tion remains far higher than therate of fuel reduction. And ourobjectives for the land, as a society,are often at cross-purposes with theecological dynamics of the land.The prospects are for ever larger,more severe wildfires.There is nearly always disagree-ment, distrust, and debate in the

management of public lands. Butour current inability to find con-sensus seems to go beyond meredifferences of opinion. I believe thatwe are stalled in crisis because welack context.

Our management of the land rarelyconsiders ecological processes.Instead, more often than not, ourmanagement objectives simplyderive from our wants from theland. Our objectives for securewildlife habitat, clean air, visualquality, secluded homesites, andother social values often overlookthe disturbance regimes that shapethe land.

Jerry Williams, the former Director of Fireand Aviation Management for the USDAForest Service’s National Office in Washing-ton, DC, now resides in Missoula, MT.

The article is based on a speech by the author at theannual meeting of the Outdoor Writers Association ofAmerica on June 22, 2004, in Spokane, WA.

The rate of fuel accumulation remains far higher than the rate of fuel reduction.

Engine captain directs a hoselay on the Rowland Fire near Contansia, CA. Photo: SueMcCourt, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.


Nowhere is this more apparentthan in the fire-prone forests of theAmerican West. We find ourselvesadopting resource objectives with-out regard for the ecological risksinvolved and bargaining to sustainthose objectives by relying on thestrength of our fire protectionforces. In the past few years, thesefire protection forces have foundthemselves running up againsttheir limits of effectiveness.

Two Points of ViewLet me use southern California toillustrate this situation. However,let me also make clear that thelosses I’ll describe are not uniqueto California; the same trends areobservable throughout the WesternUnited States. In October 2003,within a 5-day period, southernCalifornia experienced its worstwildfires on record. The fires killed24 people, destroyed more than

3,600 homes, and spread acrossmore than 750,000 acres.

After the fact, the fires broughtintense scrutiny. To oversimplifysomewhat, two opposing points ofview emerged. One side found faultwith the fire services and arguedthat the fires became so large,destructive, and costly due to poorstrategies, poor tactics, and a lackof cooperation, coordination, orcommunication. From this point ofview, the answer is more aggressiveattack, larger air tankers, biggerhelicopters, and more engines.The other side acknowledged that

we can always improve strategiesand tactics and that newer, moremodern equipment is often a plus.Fundamentally, however, until wefocus on the causal factors—thefuels—that predispose large areasto severe wildfires, larger invest-ments in fire suppression capacitywill realize only marginal benefitsand only hold temporarily. Until wereduce flammability potential, sup-pression costs, resource losses, andenvironmental damages promise tocontinue climbing as the conditionof fire-adapted forests continues todeteriorate.

Our objectives for secure wildlife habitat, clean air, secluded homesites, and other

social values often overlook the disturbanceregimes that shape the land.

Prescribed burn in the Black Hills of South Dakota, where ponderosa pine forests were historically shaped by fire. Photo: RandallBenson, South Dakota School of Mines, Rapid City, SD, 2003.


Suppression LimitsThere is indeed an important placefor wildfire suppression—I’ve beenin this business my whole career.But it should be a tactical necessitywhere values at risk are high, not astrategic imperative where contin-ued fire exclusion will only exacer-bate wildfire potential over time.Instead, the strategic imperativeshould be directed toward therestoration, maintenance, and sus-tainability of fire-adapted ecosys-tems.

Let me explain why I subscribe tothis latter point of view.

The 2003 fire siege in southernCalifornia was remarkable in aState that, more than any other, is

highly prepared to fight fire. This isa place that burns and can burnfiercely. In answer, the fire servicesat local, State, and Federal levelshave put in place a fire suppressionforce that is remarkable, in termsof capability and capacity. On aninteragency basis, the combinedwildfire protection budget inCalifornia exceeds $2.9 billion peryear. At Federal, State, and countylevels, California fields more fire-fighters, more engines, and moreassets than any place else in theUnited States—and perhaps theworld.

Yet even with this suppression forcein place, severe wildfires develop.About once per decade, the conflu-ence of drought, Santa Ana winds,

and desiccated fuels results in wild-fires that overwhelm all early con-trol efforts, such as:

• Bel Air (1961), • Laguna (1970), • Panorama (1980), • Oakland Hills/Tunnel (1991), • Malibu/Topanga (1993), and, • Cedar (2003).

When wildfires like these occur, webegin to see limits to our suppres-sion capacity. The California fireservices boast an extraordinarilyhigh initial-attack suppression success rate, nearly 99 percent.However, the 1 percent of wildfiresthat escape control account for adisproportionately high percentageof the total costs and losses.Nationally, only 1 percent of allwildfires account for about 85 per-cent of the total suppression-relat-ed expenditures and nearly 95 per-cent of the total acres burned. The interagency fire services inCalifornia are arguably the best wehave and they are nearly alwayssuccessful, but when the rare wild-fire escapes under adverse weatherand other conditions, our suppres-sion capabilities are overwhelmed—usually with catastrophic results.As large and as good as the fireservices are in California, they arenot always large enough.

We may have pushed reliance onfire suppression about as far as wecan push it when we see wildfiressetting size records, as they have infive States since 2002 (Arizona,California, Colorado, New Mexico,and Oregon). At these scales andintensities, the wildfire problem inthe United States can no longer beviewed as a fire operations issue,per se. The wildfire problem inAmerica today is a resource man-agement and land use issue. Today’sland use demands fail to take the

One of some 3,400 southern California homes destroyed by wind-driven fires in October2003. Photo: Rick Barton, Gunnison, CO, 2003.

Our strategic imperative should be directedtoward the restoration, maintenance, andsustainability of fire-adapted ecosystems.


dynamics of fire-adapted ecosys-tems into account.

Building Fire RisksDespite the fact that our westernforests are among the most volatilefire regimes on earth, we are notmanaging them with an eye towardwildfire risk mitigation. We’re oftenmanaging them for everything butwildfire risk. In fact, we are ofteninadvertently building fire risks byadopting resource strategies thatincrease biomass, close canopies,and connect fuel layers. Ironically,our objectives for the resourceimperil the very values we’re trying

to sustain, especially in fire-proneecosystems. When we protectendangered species, watersheds,recreation, visual quality, and othervalues by keeping out fire, Natureanswers by burning it all. There isnot a fire department big enoughanywhere that can deny her.

We are, I believe, at a critical junc-ture in terms of wildland fire man-agement in the United States. Twocenturies ago, Lewis and Clarkdescribed many of the physicalcharacteristics of our westernforests; today, after centuries ofresearch and experience, we are

beginning to understand theprocesses that shape those charac-teristics. However, even though ourfire policies have been modified tobetter align with the ecologies offire-prone forests, our land andresource policies are at odds. Theytend to reflect social expectationsthat are rarely consistent with theway fire-prone ecosystems work.

Paradigm ShiftNeededUntil we change this paradigm,wildfire protection expectations willforce the fire services into anuntenable and dangerous position.Firefighters should not have to beheroes because we as a society can-not agree on how to better managethe land, consistent with the eco-logical processes that shape andsustain it. ■

Firefighters should not have to be heroes becausewe cannot agree on how to better manage theland, consistent with the dynamics of fire-prone

ecosystems.

To help prepare your submission, see “Guidelines for Contributors” in this issue.

Contributors WantedWe need your fire-related articles and photographs for Fire Management Today! Feature articles shouldbe up to about 2,000 words in length. We also need short items of up to 200 words. Subjects of articlespublished in Fire Management Today include:

Aviation Firefighting experiencesCommunication Incident managementCooperation Information management (including systems)Ecosystem management PersonnelEquipment/Technology Planning (including budgeting)Fire behavior Preparedness Fire ecology Prevention/Education Fire effects SafetyFire history SuppressionFire science TrainingFire use (including prescribed fire) WeatherFuels management Wildland–urban interface

F ederal land managementagencies have long tried toreduce fire hazards in the

wildland/urban interface (WUI) aspart of their mission. Their hazardreduction projects are now orientedtoward ecosystem management,giving exceptional depth to theirfuels reduction programs. Still, wemust beware of wearing blinderswhen it comes to our role in pro-tecting communities. Reducing firehazards in the WUI is not just aland management activity.

This article proposes a new way oflooking at reducing fire hazards inthe WUI in the context of ongoingefforts to protect communitiesfrom all hazards. I propose a com-mon set of definitions for termsrelating to community hazard andrisk reduction and a Four-E Modelfor WUI mitigation interventions,based on the familiar Three-EModel of prevention interventions.

Hazard Versus RiskA hazard must exist before a disas-ter, emergency, or incident occurs.The U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA)defines hazard as a source of dan-ger and risk as a possibility of lossor injury (FEMA 2001).

A hazard is a potential threat topeople, goods, or the environment(Smith 2001). The existence of ahazard is not enough to cause a

disaster. For a hazard to become adisaster, it must pose a risk tosomething of human value. Risk isthe probability that an event willoccur that will threaten somethingof value, thus elevating a hazardinto a disaster.

For those involved in wildland fireprevention, the concepts of hazardand risk are well known (NWCG1997; Sampson and others 2000). Apotential disaster is an undesiredwildland fire threatening to harmsomething of value. The hazard isan accumulation of fuels necessaryfor a fire to occur. The valuespotentially threatened by the haz-ard could range from homes andhuman life, to a stand of commer-cial timber, to a sensitive watershedor critical habitat. Risk, for thewildland fire prevention communi-ty, is associated with ignitionsources. Because lightning andother natural ignition sources areneither controllable nor reducible,risk reduction, in this context,refers exclusively to human igni-tion.

Clarifying TermsThe terms “prevention” and “miti-gation” are often used interchange-ably within the wildland fire com-munity. Although related, theseterms are quite different. Fire pre-vention refers to diminishing the

number of wildfires by reducing therisk associated with human igni-tions, whereas mitigation refers tohazardous fuels reduction.

This terminology is often confusingwhen using the Emergency Man-agement Cycle for WUI hazardmanagement (see the sidebar). Inthe Emergency Management Cycle, the mitigation phase includes morethan what we traditionally think of as mitigation (hazardous fuelsreduction). It also includes riskreduction activities, which are traditionally considered somethingelse (fire prevention).

When addressing a fire hazard inthe WUI, prevention and mitigationeach play a role. Both risk and haz-ard must be addressed, becauserisk-reducing efforts can decreasebut not eliminate the risk of a WUIfire incident. Hazard reductionactivities must be carried out intandem with risk reduction activi-ties.

Vulnerability and Risk Although the overall assessmentprocess is referred to as a hazardassessment, vulnerability and riskare also assessed. A hazard assess-ment process can be conducted atthree levels of increasing sophisti-cation and expense (Deyle and oth-ers 1998):


A NEW LOOK AT WILDLAND/URBANINTERFACE HAZARD REDUCTIONJeremy A. Keller

Jeremy Keller is the wildland/urban inter-face coordinator for the USDI Fish andWildlife Service in Atlanta, GA.

A common set of definitions is needed for termsrelating to hazard and risk reduction in the

wildland/urban interface.


1. Hazard identification: Definingthe magnitudes (intensities) andassociated probabilities (likeli-hoods) of natural hazards poten-tially posing threats to humaninterests in specific geographicareas.

2. Vulnerability assessment:Characterizing exposed popula-tions and property (values atrisk) and the extent of injury anddamage that might result from anatural hazard event of givenintensity in a given area.

3. Risk analysis: Estimating theprobability of various levels ofinjury and damage to ensure acomplete description of the riskfrom the full range of possiblehazard events in the area.

This hazard assessment processaddresses all types of communityhazards. Although an all-hazardsapproach should be conducted dur-ing mitigation planning, it mustalso be applied to each individualhazard.

Hazard identification is the level ofhazard assessment most familiar tothe wildland fire community (seethe sidebar on page 10). At its mostbasic, it is simply a map of vegeta-tive cover emphasizing potentialhazardous cover types. Increasedavailability of geographic informa-tion system (GIS) technology hasmade the process relatively simpleto initiate and maintain.For local emergency planning pur-

poses, the vulnerability assessmentis the end product. The availabilityof funds and personnel skilled atstatistical analysis are what propelhazard assessments to the vulnera-bility assessment level. Adding datagathered from structural fire safetyassessments and defensible spacesurveys to the GIS product is thebeginning of the vulnerabilityassessment for WUI hazard areas.

EcosystemManagement The traditional Three-E Modelfocusing on education, engineering,and enforcement for fire preventionapplies to both hazard reductionand risk reduction because the twoare complementary. Both are moreeffective as part of a coordinatedeffort.

To reduce the potential for disasterfrom the accumulation of wildlandfuels, the wildland ecosystem mustbe effectively managed. Althoughan aggressive fuels reduction cam-paign can produce impressive ini-tial results, plants continue to growand the fuels will eventually return.To cost-effectively manage fuelbuildup, proven land managementtechniques are needed that aredesigned to maintain the ecosystemwithin an acceptable range of fuelconditions.

Therefore, a fourth “E”—“Ecosystem”—is needed for hazardreduction (table 1) interventions inthe WUI. The Four-E Model for WUIhazard reduction includes the spe-cial expertise required during the

The Emergency Management Cycle (modeled above) deserves moreattention in the fire management community (FEMA 2003;Godschalk 1991). The emergency management community sees themanagement of all types of disasters and emergencies in terms of acontinuous cycle of four phases: mitigation, preparedness, response,and recovery. The model also applies to the process of managingwildfire incidents in the wildland/urban interface. Using the model inthe fire community would improve our ability to collaborate withour colleagues in the Federal, State, and local emergency manage-ment agencies.

When addressing a firehazard in the WUI,

prevention andmitigation must each

play a role.

The Emergency Management Cycle


mitigation phase of the EmergencyManagement Cycle.

However, the Four-E Model is onlyeffective if it is based on a founda-tion of collaboration. A mutualunderstanding of the roles andcapabilities of those within thewildland fire, structural fire, andemergency management disciplinesis mandatory. Hazard reduction willsucceed by making the greatest useof the relative strengths of landmanagement skills for wildland fire,community education and publicrelations for structural fire, andcomprehensive mitigation planningskills for emergency management.

Collaboration NeededCollaboration among the responsi-

ble disciplines, and by extensionthe agencies they represent, is thefoundation for successfully navigat-ing the mitigation phase of theEmergency Management Cycle.Collaboration within the mitiga-tion phase will set the tone for theremaining phases of the cycle,which pertain to incident manage-ment.

Mitigation activities focusing on asingle hazard must always be underthe umbrella of a larger programaddressing all hazards. Fire hazardreduction within the WUI should bepart of a larger local or regionalmitigation strategy addressing thefull range of hazards facing thecommunity. A Four-E Model canhelp set the stage for close collabo-

ration among agencies responsiblefor wildland fire, structural fire,and emergency fire management.

ReferencesDeyle, R.E.; French, S.P.; Olshansky, R.B.;

Paterson, R.G. 1998. Hazard assessment:The factual basis for planning and mitiga-tion. In Burby, R.J., ed. Cooperating withnature: Confronting natural hazards withland-use planning for sustainable com-munities. Washington, DC: Joseph HenryPress: 119–166.

FEMA (Federal Emergency ManagementAgency). 2001. Understanding your risks:Identifying hazards and estimating losses.FEMA Pub. 386–2. Washington, DC:FEMA.

FEMA (Federal Emergency ManagementAgency). 2003. Principles of emergencymanagement (course IS–230), studenttext. Emmitsburg, MD: FEMA EmergencyManagement Institute.

Godschalk, D.R. 1991. Disaster mitigationand hazard management. In Drabek, T.E.;Hoetmer, G.J., eds. Emergency manage-ment: Principles and practice for localgovernment. Washington, DC:International City ManagementAssociation: 131–160.

IFCI (International Fire Code Institute).2000. Urban–wildland interface code.Whittier, CA: IFCI.

NWCG (National Wildfire CoordinatingGroup). 1997. Wildland fire preventionplanning (course P-301), instructor’sguide. NWCG Wildland Fire EducationWorking Team. Boise, ID.

Sampson, R.N.; Atkinson, R.D.; Lewis, J.W.2000. Indexing resource data for foresthealth decision-making. In Sampson,R.N.; Atkinson, R.D.; Lewis, J.W., eds.Mapping wildfire hazards and risks.Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press: 1–14.

Smith, K. 2001. Environmental hazards:Assessing risk and reducing disaster.London, UK: Routledge. ■

To reduce the potentialfor disaster from the

accumulation of wildlandfuels, the wildland

ecosystem must beeffectively managed.

A Hazard Assessment in ProgressAn example of a wildland/urban interface hazard assessment currentlyunderway is the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA) project,led by the Southern Group of State Foresters and supported by Stateand Federal wildland fire agencies. In spite of its title, the SWRA isactually a hazard identification assessment, with elements of a vulner-ability assessment. Based on satellite imagery, the SWRA project willprovide a coarse description of fuel loading across 13 Southern States.Additional information is available at <http://corp.spaceimaging.com/swra>.

a. International Fire Code Institute 2000.

Table 1—A Four-E Model for wildland/urban interface hazard reduction interventions,with examples of each “E”.

Education Engineering

• Firewise programs • Defensible space• Extension publications • Fire-resistant building materials• Education of elected officials • Fireline construction and

maintenance

Enforcement Ecosystems

• Wildland/urban interface code a • Prescribed burning• Local building material codes • Conversion of ecosystem types• Local brush clearance • Thinning, grazing, biomass

ordinances harvest

http://corp.spaceimaging

In Federal land management, eco-logical restoration has emerged inrecent years as an alternative to

the intensive management for com-mercial resource extraction widelypracticed following World War IIand the passive management—“letting Nature heal herself”—espoused by some environmentalgroups. Growing interest in ecolog-ical restoration is reflected inrecent research, including twobook-length studies.

Mimicking Nature’s Fire, by StephenF. Arno and Carl E. Fiedler (Wash-ington, Covelo, London: Island Press,2005), explores “restoration forestry”in the Interior West. The authorsdefine restoration forestry as aprocess of recreating “a range ofconditions representative of histori-cal ecosystems” in “tree communi-ties that were in the past shaped by distinctive patterns of fire.” Bytreating vegetation, restorationforestry facilitates ecologicalrestoration—restoring fire-adaptedecosystems that have been degrad-ed, damaged, or destroyed. Thebook covers restoration projects invarious forest types of the InteriorWest, including pinyon–juniper,ponderosa pine–fir, giant sequoia-mixed conifer, western larch–fir,lodgepole pine, whitebark pine, andaspen–conifer. The projects describedare on both private and publiclands, including wilderness areas.For each project, the authors delin-eate historical site conditions;

symptoms and causes of ecologicaldegradation; and project design,implementation, and outcomes. Byoffering the information under asingle cover, they hope to inspirerestoration projects elsewhere andto help land managers plan andconduct them.

Ecological Restoration ofSouthwestern Ponderosa PineForests, edited by Peter Friederici(Washington, Covelo, London:Island Press, 2003), takes an in-depth look at southwestern pon-derosa pine, one of the most exten-sive and best known nonlethal fireregimes in the Nation. Sponsored bythe Ecological Restoration Instituteat Northern Arizona University inFlagstaff, AZ, the work comprises

articles by an impressive array ofscholars on a wide range of subjectsrelated to the history, sociology, poli-tics, and ecology of southwesternponderosa pine. Topics range fromthe (minimal) ecological impact ofAmerican Indians, to the history ofnatural resource governance in rela-tion to science and politics, to eco-logical processes and functions suchas fuels and fire behavior, to smokeand wildland/urban interface issues,to project monitoring and adaptivemanagement. Lists of threatened,endangered, and sensitive speciessupplement an extensive section onrestoring and protecting biologicaldiversity. Though useful to anyoneinterested in ecological restoration,the book is especially valuable forland managers in the Southwest. ■


Prescribed fire roars through a dead and dying storm-damaged forest in QueticoProvincial Park, Ontario, Canada. The burn followed a regional blowdown in July 1999that also hit the adjacent Boundary Waters Canoe Area across the border in Minnesota.An example of restoration forestry in the stand replacement fire regime, the burn wasdesigned to promote natural forest regeneration while reducing the fire hazard for parkusers. Photo: Ministry of Natural Resources, Fire Management Centre, Dryden, ON, 2000.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION: TWO RECENTSTUDIESHutch Brown

Hutch Brown is a writer/editor for theUSDA Forest Service and the managingeditor of Fire Management Today,Washington Office, Washington, DC.


Just as wildland fire managersmust have a working knowl-edge of fire behavior, they

must also understand the socialdimensions of wildland fire in orderto effectively engage the public.Social scientists are therefore gath-ering information about public atti-tudes toward wildland fire and wild-fire mitigation. How do people seethe “wildfire problem”? What socialvalues are threatened? What role docommunity dynamics play? Howcan citizens be engaged in mitigat-ing the threat? And what is theinstitutional context of wildlandfire management?

A Question ofPerceptionThe way individuals perceive wild-land fire influences their proposalsfor action. Some people see wildfireas a problem because a fire-proneforest has too many trees, whereasothers see the problem as too manypeople living in or near the forest.Those who see too many trees asthe problem will promote forestthinning, whereas those who believethat too many people and housesare the problem will focus on landuse and access restrictions. Eachcourse of action includes additionalquestions about the size and scopeof the prescriptions or regulationsto follow.

Public attitudes toward wildlandfire are also influenced by the repu-tation of those who propose a givencourse of action. The public fre-quently judges individuals based ontheir organizational affiliations,professional reputations, and socialstanding—factors that wildland firemanagers should consider whenworking with citizens and commu-nities to build a successful wildlandfire management program.

Social Values at StakeThe fundamental social valuethreatened by wildfire is humanlife. After human life, several valuesrate about equally in surveys andinterviews:• Sense of place. Just as “home” is

more than a physical structurewith rooms, “place” is more thana piece of land. People oftenassociate landscapes with rich,multilayered experiences, memo-ries, symbols, and meanings.Wildland fire can transform alandscape to the point where it isnot the same place, with socialresults that range from anger todeep emotional trauma. Evenwildfire mitigation strategies canaffect people’s sense of place.Aggressive thinning around peo-ple’s houses can undermine thevery reason that many peoplechoose to live in a particularplace — a sense of seclusionfrom living in the woods.

• Sense of belonging. People arepart of a complex web of socialrelationships, networks, andcooperative efforts that offer asense of identity, security, andwell-being. When wildfire affectsa community, whether urban orrural, it can dramatically trans-form these social ties. Responsesmight be positive (“the firebrought neighbors together”),negative (“this community willnever be the same”), or neutral(“people are just going on withtheir lives as if nothing hap-pened”).

• Property. People spend a lot ofeffort and money to have proper-ty in the woods—often in forestecosystems prone to wildlandfire. Losing property to a wildfirecan be a devastating financialand emotional loss. On a com-munity level, when property isdestroyed, property taxesdecline—taxes that are needed tofund schools, roads, and otherpublic services.

• Public environmental resources.In ecosystems that are function-ing within their historical fireregimes, the fires that canadversely affect water, wildlife,and recreation resources in theshort term are necessary to sus-tain the same values in thelonger term. It would be a mis-take to interpret public supportfor minimizing wildland fire as

Wildland fire managers must have a basicunderstanding of the social dimensions of wildland

fire to effectively work with the public.

Tony Cheng is an assistant professor in the Department of Forest, Rangeland, andWatershed Stewardship at Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, CO; and DennisBecker is a research forester for the USDAForest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation, on detail to Flagstaff, AZ.

PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES ON THE“WILDFIRE PROBLEM”Antony S. Cheng and Dennis R. Becker


support for any and all means ofrisk reduction. The public mightlack a clear, in-depth under-standing of what mitigationefforts involve. The same peoplewho approve the idea of doingsomething to reduce the firethreat might oppose the neces-sary scale of logging or pre-scribed burning.

Prioritizing these values is difficult,if not impossible. The social valuesthreatened by wildfire are intercon-nected, giving value to each other.Although wildfire mitigation pro-grams attempt to encompass sever-al values, there are often tradeoffs.Engaging citizens and communitiesin active, ongoing dialogue isessential when it comes to trade-offs, because managers and thepublic then know each other’s posi-tion and can work towards sustain-able improvements and outcomes.

UnderstandingCommunitiesWildfire mitigation is most success-ful at the community level becausemitigation must be sustainedacross ownership boundaries. Ifwildland fire management is aboutaddressing a wildfire before, during,and after the event, then managersmust understand several thingsabout communities:

• Communities are dynamic. Acommunity is a long-runningstory, and a fire is just one eventin that story. Understanding thestory will help wildland fire man-agers understand how communi-ties function, how they respondto fire events, and what mitiga-tion measures might best suc-ceed.

• Communities are diverse. It isimportant to understand the cul-tural connections people havewith the land. For example, expe-

riences with fire and land man-agement stretch back countlessgenerations in American Indiancommunities and in Hispaniccommunities in the SouthwesternUnited States. Listening to com-munity histories and then hon-oring and respecting longstand-ing ways of knowing are essentialto building effective partnershipswith any community.

• Communities have differentcapacities for self-governanceand action. Some communitieshave enough skilled people,organizations, finances, andphysical infrastructure to organ-ize around, prepare for, andrespond to a wildfire. Others donot. Communities vary in thetype and amount of assistanceneeded to cope with fire. Onesize does not fit all.

• Communities have variousmechanisms for innovation and

for adopting and diffusing solu-tions. Wildfire mitigation ismore successful in communitieswith innovative, risk-taking lead-ers who are willing to try some-thing new, adapt it to their par-ticular circumstances, andspread the message to others.Utilizing these leaders and theirnetworks is important for wild-land fire managers. For commu-nities without them, more inten-sive and innovative outreach,training, and demonstrationprojects might be necessary.

• Communities have unique socialand political dynamics.Communities have formal lead-ers—those elected to serve inpublic office—as well as informalleaders, such as ministers, news-paper editors, long-time resi-dents, prominent business peo-ple, educators, and public-inter-est activists. Some informal lead-

The Encebado Fire approaches Taos Pueblo in New Mexico as tribal members watch.Particularly where communities are threatened by wildland fire, the social dimensions offire management are critical. Photo: Ignacio Peralta, Carson National Forest, Taos, NM,2003.


ers have more influence on acommunity’s politics than theformal elected leaders. Moreover,rumors, perceptions, and infor-mation circulate through variousnetworks—mass media, organi-zational meetings and newslet-ters, Internet chat groups, cof-feeshop discussions, and neigh-bor-to-neighbor conversations.Finally, although several organi-zations can operate within acommunity, some have strongerties and are more respected thanothers.

Wildland fire managers must adapttheir messages and practices to thecommunity; they should not expectthe community to adapt to them. Itis not the community that getsinvolved in wildland fire manage-ment, but rather the wildland firemanager who gets involved withthe community.

Engaging CitizensFire management projects can fal-ter if there is public opposition.How do wildland fire managers sus-tain public understanding, support,and participation? Several pointsare key:

• People’s attitudes do not alwayspredict their behavior. Peoplefavorably disposed to wildfiremitigation might not initiatemitigation activities, perhaps forlack of technical knowledge orfinancial means. Public educa-tion and financial assistancemight help, but research showsthat most people will not partici-pate in mitigation efforts, evenwith sufficient funding and edu-

cation. • People perceive wildfire risk in a

broader context. People tend toworry more about their kids get-ting into a car accident or con-tracting an illness than aboutwildfire. When it comes to allo-cating personal investments oftime, energy, and money, mostpeople have many prioritiesahead of wildfire.

• Public information campaignsbenefit from interpersonal com-munication. Public informationcampaigns through mass media,mailings, or other approachesare an important first step inraising public awareness.However, the messenger is asimportant as the message, if notmore so. Public persuasion cam-paigns are only effective if peopletrust the source. To build trust,managers must initiate one-on-one communication and publicinvolvement programs.

• People learn from their peers.Research shows that communi-ties adopt and diffuse technologi-cal information better through aneighbor-to-neighbor or peer-to-peer training approach. Cooper-ative extension has successfullyused this approach for years byconnecting people with peoplelike them, not with outsideexperts. Peer relationships arealso powerful motivators—whenpeople see others doing certainthings, it builds confidence.

• Collaborative learning helps sus-tain productive relationships. Ina collaborative process, man-agers and citizens learn fromeach other, working together toreach solutions that are other-

wise unattainable. Collaborativelearning is active and experien-tial, emphasizing hands-onanalysis, fieldwork, and face-to-face communication to minimizemisunderstanding, establishaccountability, and build trust.In a collaborative process, man-agers are facilitators, technicaladvisors, and informationproviders rather than authorityfigures.

Engaging citizens and communitiesrequires more than mere publicinformation campaigns. To sustainwildfire mitigation efforts, man-agers must motivate people to takelong-term actions. Raising aware-ness and facilitating mutual learn-ing are necessary for sustainingmotivation and action.

Institutional IssuesMany institutional issues affect howwildland fire managers engage thepublic. Being aware of the issueshelps managers identify potentialbarriers and focus on progress.Institutional issues include:

• Organizational culture. Wildlandfire management programs oftenhave a hierarchical organization-al structure composed of techni-cal experts. Although these pro-grams effectively address thetechnical side of fire manage-ment, they are not always user-friendly from the public’s per-spective. It is important for tech-nically trained professionals inthese programs to encouragepublic involvement and account-ability, regardless of perceiveddelays.

• Organizational capacity.Attention to community assis-tance and collaborative planningin wildland fire management is arecent phenomenon. Althoughland management agencies such

Engaging citizens and communities in active,ongoing dialogue is essential to successful wildfire

mitigation.


as the USDA Forest Service havea long history of seeking publicinput, the responsibility to do sois assigned to only a few—typi-cally, public affairs officers, dis-trict rangers, and interdiscipli-nary planning teams. Many tech-nical staffs in public resourceagencies lack the training andexperience necessary to addresspublic concerns.

• Agency specialization. Federal,State, and local agencies vary intheir roles and responsibilities inwildfire mitigation. During awildland fire, citizens eager forinformation are often frustratedbecause they do not know who togo to for updates. When a newgroup of specialists arrive forpostfire recovery, the level offrustration and confusion canincrease. Local fire officialsmight also experience a degree offrustration with their assignedresponsibilities.

• Interagency and intergovern-mental relations. These relation-ships are affected by agency cul-ture, budgets, and legal authori-ties. A memorandum of under-standing formalizes relationshipsbut does not always lead to coop-eration and coordinated actions.Although the National Fire Planimproved such relationships, ananalysis by the NationalAssociation of PublicAdministration suggests that

more work is needed (Fairbanksand others 2002).

• Laws, policies, and administra-tive rules. Myriad mandates andprocedures can slow downimplementation of wildfire miti-gation strategies on Federallands. Studies by the GeneralAccounting Office and research-ers at Northern Arizona Univ-ersity suggest that administra-tive appeals and litigation mightnot have as large an overall effect on fuels treatments assometimes claimed (GAO 2003;Cortner and others 2003), butappeals and litigation have insome cases resulted in smallerprojects than planned, withadverse consequences (see, forexample, Keller 2004). The ongo-ing debates about multiple man-dates contribute to the politiciza-tion of wildland fire.

Asking critical questions about theinstitutional dimensions of wild-land fire management can chal-lenge conventional wisdom and thehistorical way of doing things. Theultimate purpose of institutionalanalysis is to improve how institu-tions are able to address a problemas complex, controversial, anddynamic as wildland fire. It isimportant for wildland fire man-agers to engage in dialogue aboutinstitutional issues to ensure sus-tainable outcomes.

Social Dimensions Are CriticalThe growing publicity surroundingwildfire mitigation has betterengaged citizens and communitiesin planning and implementing fuelstreatments. Budgets, interagencycoordination, and public awarenesshave all increased. However, thecomplexity and controversy associ-ated with wildfire mitigation stillput many wildland fire managers inchallenging social situations.

It is just as crucial for wildland firemanagers to understand the socialdimensions of wildland fire as tounderstand fire regimes and firebehavior. How a wildland fire man-ager addresses the social side ofwildland fire will determine thesustainability of future wildfire mit-igation programs.

ReferencesCortner, H.J.; Teich, G.M.R.; Vaughn, J.

2003. Analyzing USDA Forest Serviceappeals: Phase 1, the database. Website<http://www.eri.nau.edu/forms/files/FS-appeals-database-web.pdf>. Flagstaff, AZ:Ecological Restoration Institute.

Fairbanks, F.; Hill, E.; Kelly, P.; Laverty, L.;Mulrooney, K.F.; Philpot, C.; Wise, C.2002. Wildfire suppression: Strategies forcontaining costs. A report by a panel ofthe National Academy of PublicAdministration for the U.S. Congress andthe U.S. Departments of Agriculture andthe Interior. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy of Public Administration.

GAO (General Accounting Office). 2003.Information on appeals and litigationinvolving fuel reduction activities.GAO–04–52. Website <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0452.pdf>. Washington,DC: GAO.

Keller, P. 2004. What comes from doingnothing? Fire Management Today. 64(4):9. ■

It is not the community that gets involved inwildland fire management; it is the wildland firemanager who gets involved in the community.

http://www.eri.nau.edu/forms/files/FS-appeals-database-web.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0452.pdf


BUILDING A LANDSCAPE-LEVELPRESCRIBED FIRE PROGRAMJoseph P. Ferguson

As we enter year 4 of theNational Fire Plan, treat-ment of hazardous fuels

remains a top priority for naturalresource management agencies.Although mechanical fuels treat-ments have made many communi-ties safer, we will never be able toafford enough mechanical treat-ments to make a significant differ-ence nationally. Prescribed fire canbe a good alternative, provided wechange our approach and focus onlandscape-level programs ratherthan developing individual projects.

Five Keys to SuccessRegardless of geographic locationor agency affiliation, the Nation’slargest, most successful fire useprograms have found five keys tosuccess.

Breaking the Suppression Attitude.Many topnotch fire managementofficers have difficulty transitioningfrom a suppression mentality to aprescribed fire approach. Forinstance, it is common to see hold-ing forces arrayed along every con-trol line, an excess of contingencyresources, and lack of basic firebehavior knowledge.

Most fire managers evaluate fuelconditions, calculate weather, andestimate what will occur when aprescribed fire is ignited. But toooften these same managers defaultto the suppression mode of think-ing rather than relying on their

skills and knowledge. The result isoften a dramatic increase in execu-tion costs and a prevalence of no-godecisions.

More than in any other programarea, prescribed fire successdepends on individuals with thevision, drive, and desire to conductthe program. No matter where theyare located or what local challengesthey face, prescribed fire championshave broken the suppression atti-tude. Notable examples include thelate Paul Gleason of the USDAForest Service and U.S. Departmentof the Interior National ParkService and the recently retired JimPaxon of the Forest Service.

Better training programs willimprove understanding of firebehavior. Additionally, developing,using, and expanding existing train-ing programs will help instill confi-dence in prescribed fire plannersand practitioners and produceintelligent managers to place in keyroles and positions.

Seeing the Big Picture. When build-ing a landscape-level program, keymanagers and specialists with big-picture perspectives should be used.Considering the whole ecosystem iscritical when making decisions,measuring success, and evaluatingimpacts on plants and animals.

Prescribed fire proposals often arenot implemented because key indi-viduals focus only on short-termimpacts rather than long-term ben-efits. The fate of many endangeredspecies depends on fire to maintainand improve habitat. Any burnmight harm a given individual, butthat is not necessarily a valid rea-son for no or limited action if, inthe long term, the entire speciessuffers.

To develop a broad vision, trainersand mentors with big-pictureunderstanding are needed.Recommendations should be basedon long-term prescribed fire effects,and regulators should be apprisedof the long-term benefits of pre-scribed fire. Although short-termeffects might sometimes takeprecedence, the broader perspectivemust be evaluated.

Expanding the Burning Window.Across the country, fuel buildupsoften keep managers from usingunderburns within the historicalrange of low-intensity fires.Nevertheless, using such burnsshould be a goal when building alandscape-level program. MotherNature rarely burns large acreageswith a cool backing fire alone; afterfuels are reduced, neither should aprescribed burn. A true landscape-level program will mimic the his-

Regardless of geographic location or agencyaffiliation, the Nation’s largest, most successful

fire use programs have found five keys tosuccess.

Joe Ferguson is the assistant director ofFire and Aviation Management for theUSDA Forest Service, Southern Region,Atlanta, GA.


torical or natural variability withlittle effort.

Managers of fire-adapted ecosys-tems will likely never have enoughperfect burning days to accomplishtheir goals. If 30 days are needed, itis likely that only 10 days will beideal. But managers shouldn’t sim-ply discontinue burning. Instead,they should continue burning onanother 10 days—5 that are a littletoo cool and 5 that are a little toohot. Then 10 more days of burningare needed—5 with very cool burnsand 5 with very hot ones. Thecumulative result is a program thatcomes closer to the natural rangeof variability than a program wherethe decision to burn is delayeduntil a perfect day arrives.

Most fire use programs have pre-scribed fire seasons that rarelymatch the natural fire seasons.Although nature’s variability cannot

be replicated, it is important to con-duct some burns during the seasonwhen wildland fires naturally occurin order to maintain importantecosystem components and to burnsufficient numbers of acres.

Making Every Day a Burn Day.Developing an atmosphere in whichall employees support the burn pro-gram and see every day as a poten-tial burn day is important for fireuse success. Other projects mightbe just as important, but few havethe narrow window of opportunitytypical of a fire use project. In unitswith a successful landscape-levelburn program, employees come towork expecting to burn every day.

Line officers should clearly explainthat prescribed fire is the top prior-ity and should set an example byexpecting to burn on every feasibleday. That means wearing Nomex tothe office even on marginal days

and starting the preburn processeseven when it’s not certain that aburn will actually take place. Otherproject work should be plannedwith flexibility in mind so it won’tinterfere with an opportunity toproceed with a burn.

Including the Entire Workforce.Local fire organizations might burna lot of acres, but they will neverbuild a landscape-level fire use pro-gram without involving the entireworkforce. Fire managers shouldrecruit and maintain employeeswho are capable of passing thephysical fitness standards. Bio-logists, archeologists, recreationtechnicians, timber markers, plan-ners, and line officers should all beincorporated into the program. Allemployees working on burns mustsustain current prescribed firequalifications, and fire seasonassignments should be planned tokeep the prescribed fire programgoing, even when some employeesare away.

The four largest prescribed fire pro-grams in the country are conductedon the Apalachicola National Forest,Desoto National Forest, FortStewart Army Base, and Eglin AirForce Base. Collectively, these fourunits typically burn 500,000 acres(170,000 ha) per year. Their firemanagement officers and line offi-cers understand the importance ofbreaking the suppression attitude,seeing the big picture, expandingthe burning window, making everyday a burn day, and including theentire workforce. They make it hap-pen and so can you.

Taking the Next StepThe most important thing is to getstarted. You can start moving yourprogram forward in a number ofways. Ten steps in particular areworth considering:

To develop a broad vision, trainers and mentorswith big-picture understanding are needed.

Figure 1—Prescribed fire ignition around the base of a red-cockaded woodpecker cavitytree on the Apalachicola Ranger District, Florida National Forests. Photo: SusanFitzgerald, Florida National Forests, Apalachicola Ranger District, Bristol, FL, 2004.


1. Discuss the importance of land-scape-level programs with lineofficers.

2. Solicit the support of employeesat all organizational levels.

3. Contact the planners and con-tribute to your unit’s forestplan, refuge management plan,comprehensive plan, or otheragency guiding document.

4. Discuss the possibility of enlarg-ing the prescribed fire programat the next leadership teammeeting.

5. Contact a biologist, maybe in asocial setting, to exchange viewsand foster better understanding.

6. Send employees to the Pre-scribed Fire Training Center inTallahassee, FL, or Fire UseTraining Academy in Albuquerque,NM, and ask them to share theirexperience with others.

7. Contact someone you met on awildfire and arrange to exchangepersonnel to help each otherburn.

8. Arrange for a prescribed fireworkshop in your area.

9. Attend the prescribed fire cours-es at the National Advanced Fireand Resource Institute inTucson, AZ.

10.Partner with your local Stateforestry officials, volunteer firedepartments, or anyone whomight be interested in pre-scribed fire.

For more information on building a prescribed fire program, contactJoe Ferguson, National Forests inFlorida, 325 John Knox Rd., SuiteF-100, Tallahassee, FL 32303, 850-523-8562 (voice), [email protected] (e-mail). ■

Figure 2—Results of a prescribed fire on the Apalachicola Ranger District, FloridaNational Forests, include a dense wiregrass understory. Some areas on the district areapproaching the appearance that early Spanish explorers found in Florida. Photo: SusanFitzgerald, Florida National Forests, Apalachicola Ranger District, Bristol, FL, 2004.

In units with asuccessful landscape-level burn program,employees come towork expecting to burn every day.

F ire behavior is so complexthat it often requires theexpertise of fire behavior ana-

lysts and fire weather meteorolo-gists to fully understand. Expertsknow that successful fire modelingis based on determining thedegrees of variation from homoge-neous conditions—the more con-sistent the conditions, the moreaccurate the model. Conversely,when there is a great variation inconditions on a fire, it becomesmore difficult for a model to makean accurate prediction.

Contrast modeling provides intelli-gence using a single analyticalpremise—the observation of con-trast in nine key factors associatedwith the fire environment. Themodel is another tool for firefight-ers to use in identifying the subtleclues that help predict fire behavior.Through contrast modeling, fire-fighters can calculate the appropri-ate level of caution to use inapproaching a fire.

Modeling: A FireSuppression ToolThere are many checklists, warn-ings, models, and other tools forwildland fire suppression. Toolsvary from the Ten Standard FireOrders to elaborate fire modelingtechniques. In experienced hands,all the tools can provide indicatorsthat assist in analyzing and devel-oping suppression plans. Whenproperly used, fire suppressiontools are extremely effective; when

ignored, the likelihood of tragedyincreases.

As a tool, a fire behavior model issimilar to a charged fire hose aimedat the flames. Both the model andthe hose need constant oversightand adjustment to ensure success.Fire behavior analysts use theirextensive training, experience, andskill to supervise and modify firebehavior models. Both they and fireweather meteorologists measurecountless factors to successfullypredict when, where, and how a firewill burn.

When the factors measured on afire are constant or homogeneous,a fire behavior model can be highlyaccurate. During the 1996 BuffaloCreek Fire in the municipal water-shed for Denver, CO, afternoonwinds blew the fire 12 miles (19km) in one direction, but the fire’swidth rarely approached a mile (1.6km). In this case, the wind was thecontrolling, homogeneous factorthat allowed firefighters to predictthe fire’s likely path. This is anexample of modeling in its mostelementary form.

Unfortunately, fire behavior model-ing and fire weather forecasting arereadily available only on larger,more complex fires. Fire behavioranalysts and fire weather forecast-ers have limited opportunities to

provide information until aftertransition from one commandstructure to another, when the fireis most dangerous and unpre-dictable. Due to the limited avail-ability of fire behavior analysts andthe complexity of their models,incident commanders and firefight-ers often rely on their own elemen-tary to intermediate training forbasic predictive tools.

Primary Elements ofthe Fire EnvironmentThere is an unlimited number ofpotential fire environments, eachwith an infinite number of influ-encing factors that could potential-ly produce dangerous firefightingsituations. Contrast modeling helpsfirefighters focus on the primaryelements of the fire environmentand the most important factors thatinfluence fire behavior.

The first step is to identify thethree primary elements of the fireenvironment, together with theirkey subfactors. The primary ele-ments are:

1. Atmosphere: interlacing airmasses and contrasting weather,which are most apparent at theair mass boundaries.

2. Fuels: anything of tangible sub-stance capable of burning.

3. Landforms: conduits for heating,funneling, and mixing air masses.


CONTRAST MODELING AND PREDICTINGFIRE BEHAVIORJames K. Barnett

Contrast modeling is a tool that ordinaryfirefighters can use to identify the subtle clues

that help predict fire behavior.

Jim Barnett is the branch chief of firetraining for the USDA Forest Service,Washington, DC.


Two commonly measured factorsthat do not often directly affect firebehavior are heat and humidity.Although heat and humidity canindicate where fuels will burn morerapidly, they are relatively constantand rarely change rapidly enoughto become a primary influencingelement (fig. 1).

Identifying theSubfactorsThe contrast model is designed toprovide subtle clues that increase

the firefighter’s awareness of vari-ables that could contribute tochanging fire behavior. It is basedon observing key subfactors of theprimary elements influencing firebehavior. Key subfactors must berelatively dynamic, contributing tosubtle change for a short distanceor period of time; and observablewithout using measuring equip-ment. They must also show obviouscontrast, with variable boundaries,colors, shapes, or sizes.

Each primary element has threekey subfactors:

• Atmosphere: windspeed, winddirection, and cloud cover.

• Fuels: size, amount, and type.• Landforms: slope, aspect, and

type.

Eliminating SubfactorsThe second step in contrast firemodeling is to lower the number ofinfluencing subfactors by evaluat-ing their potential impact on firebehavior. The process begins byobserving the fuels and landformswithin a 1,000-foot (300-m) radiusfrom the burned or burningperimeter. Of course, the nine sub-factors might not always be visiblefrom a single location—some couldbe miles away. Maps, local knowl-edge, and information from aerialobservers can help identify unob-servable influences as well as deter-mine distances from canyons orlarge bodies of water, which cangenerate effects from miles away.

Examples of subfactor influencesare shown in tables 1 and 2. Basedon the observations made, some ofthe subfactors might be eliminateddue to their absence, uniformity, or

Contrast modeling is based on observing keysubfactors of the primary elements influencing fire

behavior.

Atmosphere

Fuel(s)

Landform(s)

Figure 1—Contrast model influences. Thethree primary elements of any fire environ-ment provide a reference for envisioningand segregating the primary elements andsubfactors.

More on HeatThe sun’s heat is the primary influence on the Earth’s weather as itpushes and pulls air through the atmosphere. For example:

• Frontal boundaries, where warm and cool air masses collide, oftencause moderate to extremely destructive winds.

• Variable heating and cooling generate onshore, offshore, upcanyon,and downcanyon winds.

• Differential heating sucks cooler air laterally into the main firefront.

• Smoke from a campfire is drawn toward the one person generatingthe most external body heat, which demonstrates how the atmos-phere is influenced by heating bodies or air masses.

Heating and cooling occur slowly and are neither dynamic nor easilyobserved without instruments. The primary elements of the fire envi-ronment (atmosphere, fuels, and landforms—fig. 1) indirectly includethe effect of heat on fire behavior. For example:

• Fuels: A uniform group of trees or vegetation can absorb or reflectheat at a relatively constant rate, which can vary greatly from therate of heat absorption and reflection of the surrounding fuels orlandforms.

• Landforms: An ocean, sea, or lake can absorb the sun’s heat at arate that differs measurably from surrounding landmasses.

• Landforms (subfactor slope): When altitude increases, temperaturedeclines. An air mass high up a slope heats fuels and landforms dif-ferently than air masses downslope.


consistency. After analyzing andeliminating them, the next step isto evaluate the remaining subfac-tors.

Rating theUnpredictabilityAll nine subfactors can contributeto fire movement in unexpecteddirections. Several factors together,combined with a fire during transi-tion—which typically takes placewhen the fire is around 25 acres(10 ha) in size—can create chaos.Tables 3 and 4 can be used to calcu-late escalating levels of caution.Assessing the level of caution pro-

Table 1—Contrasting influences observable within a 1,000-feet (300-m) radius from the burned or burning fire perimeter.

Subfactors Homogeneous Contrasting

Atmosphere

Windspeed None or steady Variable

Wind direction None or steady Variable

Cloud cover Fog, clear, or overcast Scattered or broken

Fuels (ground and aerial)

Size Uniform Variable

Amount Consistent Variable

Type Similar Variable

Landforms

Slope Flat or even grade Variable

Aspect None or single direction Variable

Type No influencing type in the Type within reasonable distancegeneral vicinity

Subfactors Potential Influences

Atmosphere

Windspeed Growth variability

Wind direction Indication of multiple influencing factors and growth variability

Cloud cover Localized instability due to heating/cooling variations

Fuels

Size Variable drying, flammability, and intensity rates

Amount Variable burning speeds and intensities

Type Variable heating/cooling, flammability, and intensity rates

Landforms

Slope Variable heating/cooling generating variable airflow

Aspect Variable heating/cooling generating variable burning intensity

Type The closer and larger a significant landform, thegreater the potential for localized influences

Table 2—Dynamic observable contrasting influences.

The process begins byobserving the fuels and

landforms within athousand-foot radiusfrom the burned orburning perimeter.


vides information about the unpre-dictability of a fire’s behavior.

The experience and knowledge offire behavior analysts and fire weath-

er meteorologists cannot be replicat-ed. However, when fire behavioranalysis and fire weather modelingare unavailable, the contrastmodel—another firefighting tool—

can help firefighters focus on subtleenvironmental clues and variablesthat can have unpredictable and dis-astrous consequences. ■

Table 3—Table for calculating warningpoints based on key subfactors of the pri-mary elements influencing fire behavior.

Table 4—Table for assessing level of caution based on number of warning points fromobserving key subfactors of the primary elements influencing fire behavior.

Warning points Caution level

0–1 Low—fire should burn consistently

2 (different primary Concern—fire shows some potential element areas) for variation

2–3 (same primary Vigilance—constant subfactor element area) observation needed

3 (two or three primary Caution—initial indicators of complex element areas) behavior

4–5 Watch out—fire has high potential of unpredictability

6–9 Strong warning—fire is unpredictable

Contrast?SubfactorsYes/No

Windspeed 1/0

Wind direction 1/0

Cloud cover 1/0

Fuel size 1/0

Fuel amount 1/0

Fuel type 1/0

Slope 1/0

Aspect 1/0

Landform type 1/0

Total warning [add abovepoints scores]

WEBSITES ON FIRE*

Wildland Fires in YellowstoneJust the facts! That’s what you’ll get when you visitYellowstone National Park’s Wildland Fire Website.The homepage is a concise summary of the currentyear’s fire activity, with access to a database thatprovides several types of fire maps—access, aerial,cover and fuel type, and topographic—as well aslinks to press releases and photos for many fires.Fire reports archived back to 1999 are also accessi-ble from the homepage.

The objective of the Wildland Fire Program atYellowstone is to suppress wildfires that are human-

caused or that threaten people, property, or resourcevalues and to ensure that naturally ignited wildlandfires burn as part of an ecological process. The siteoffers information about the park’s fire ecology, firemanagement, and other fire-related features andactivities in Yellowstone, plus many links.

Found at <http://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/fire>

* Occasionally, Fire Management Today briefly describes Websites brought to ourattention by the wildland fire community. Readers should not construe thedescription of these sites as in any way exhaustive or as an official endorsement bythe USDA Forest Service. To have a Website described, contact the managing edi-tor, Hutch Brown, at USDA Forest Service, Office of the Chief, Yates Building, 4thFloor Northwest, 201 14th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024, 202-205-0878(tel.), 202-205-1765 (fax), [email protected] (e-mail).

http://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/fire

Fire managers planning proj-ects often evaluate the effect offuel treatments and other land

use activities on potential wildfirebehavior. To make these assess-ments, managers typically rely onfuel and fire behavior modelingbefore a fire or fire research after-ward. In 2002, the AdaptiveManagement Services EnterpriseTeam launched a unique researchproject: The team collected firebehavior data during actual wild-fires.

The real-time project, funded bythe Joint Fire Sciences Programand the Fire and AviationManagement Staff in the USDAForest Service’s Pacific SouthwestRegion, focused on providing firemanagers with quantitative infor-mation. Researchers, successful inmeeting many objectives, areexpanding operations and seekingadditional funding and support.

Getting StartedFrom 1999 to 2004, JoAnn Fites-Kaufman, team leader and the pro-ject’s principal investigator, workedextensively with incident manage-ment teams on wildfires. Fites-Kaufman became familiar with fireoperations and developed opera-tional research procedures.

In 2002, with the support of theForest Service’s Missoula Fire Laband Missoula Technology andDevelopment Center, Fites-Kaufman and Tiffany Norman, the

team’s technology specialist, devel-oped equipment to use in studieson safety zones and crown fires.The Development Center made spe-cial fire-resistant boxes for videocameras and a heat trigger deviceto safely videotape fire behaviorduring a wildland fire. The equip-ment was tested in California on aprescribed fire in Yosemite NationalPark in 2002 and on prescribedburns on the Tahoe and PlumasNational Forests in 2003 (fig. 1).

In May 2003, the Rapid Responseand Research Team (RRT) wasformed. The team was trained inoperational and scientific proce-dures, including fireline safety.Team members included Fites-Kaufman, firefighters, a fire behav-ior analyst, and field technicianswith firefighting experience. Objec-tives for the 2003 fire season wereto:

• Prototype fire behavior researchon wildfires;

• Design equipment and test sen-sor operation and layout onselected sites;

• Establish operational proceduresand methods for collecting data;

• Work successfully with incidentmanagement teams on activefires;

• Observe and measure fire behav-ior in fuel treatment areas; and

• Measure prefire fuel conditionsto identify the metrics applicableto wildland fire behavior and torefine fuels inventories, maps,and monitoring data.

Evaluating a FireSeasonThe RRT evaluated nine wildfires onsix national forests during the sum-mer of 2003 (table 1). Equip-mentwas installed and fuel plots weredetermined to capture fire behavioras it passed through the researchsites (fig. 2). The layout design wasbased on successful research byProfessor Phil Omi of ColoradoState University, Fort Collins, CO, inreconstructing changes in firebehavior after fires (Pollet and Omi2002). Detailed fuel plots were takenusing the Brown’s Planar Intersectmethod and measurements ofcrown fuels with laser devices.


RAPID-RESPONSE FIRE BEHAVIORRESEARCH AND REAL-TIME MONITORINGCarol J. Henson

A research teamcollected data during

actual wildfires, aunique study on fire

behavior.

Carol Henson is a fire behavior analyst forthe USDA Forest Service, Pacific SouthwestRegion, Vallejo, CA.

Figure 1—Testing a buried heat flux sen-sor during project development on a pre-scribed burn in California. Photo: AdaptiveManagement Services Enterprise Team,USDA Forest Service Tahoe NationalForest, Nevada City, CA, 2002.


The team found sites that had expe-rienced fuel treatments, timberharvest, and old fires and were suit-able for the project objectives. Afterdaily assessments of expected firebehavior, changes in weather, andfire suppression operations, theteam installed sensors at the sitesthought most susceptible to fire. Inall instances, when equipment wasplaced in treated areas, fire sup-pression operations or weather

changes prevented the fire fromreaching the research sites.

On the Robert Fire on the FlatheadNational Forest and GlacierNational Park in Montana, sensorswere removed from a site in theDeep Creek drainage after it rained.The team had reached the end of a14-day tour, and it appeared thatthe fire was contained on that edge.But 2 days after the sensors were

removed, weather conditionschanged, and the fire raged throughthe abandoned research site. Basedon this experience, the team decid-ed that better weather informationand logistics that allowed for longerassignments and equipment datacollection were needed.

Reaching a GoalAfter limited success gathering firebehavior data on four of the five

Table 1—Summary of the 2003 Rapid Response and Research Team’s investigations of wildfire behavior.

Fire Location Targeted sample site Results

Salt Eldorado National Thinned, burned fuelbreak Fire did not reach research siteForest, CA

Hidden Lake Bearverhead–Deerlodge None suitable Fire deemed unsuitable for projectNational Forest, MT

Black Frog Bearverhead–Deerlodge Selective harvest Rain made fire unlikely to reach siteComplex National Forest, MT

Wedge Flathead National Forest Fuelbreak around Fuelbreak research site had already and Glacier National community and harvest burned; second site on private land Park, MT area on private property was not suitable

Robert Flathead National Forest 2000 Moose Fire Sensors pulled from first site after and Glacier National 1 week due to rain; data collected Park, MT at second site as part of burnout

operation below Apgar Lookout (sensor placement test)

Crazy Horse Lolo National Forest, MT Shelterwood and clearcut Sensors pulled after more than 1 on Plum Creek Timber week; fire did not reach research Company lands sites due to rain

Black Lolo National Forest, MT Contrasting open and Sensors moved from first site Mountain 2 closed forests after suppression forces contained

fire; second site experienced extreme fire behavior with an active crown fire

Codfish Tahoe National Forest, CA Selective harvest Sensors pulled after 1 week; Complex suppression forces contained fire

Old San Bernardino National Wildland/urban interface Sensors pulled after several days; it Forest, CA rained, and the fire did not reach

the research sites

fires in Montana (table 1), the RRTadjusted its strategy. The BlackMountain 2 Fire on the LoloNational Forest was started bylightning in August 2003. Vegetationin the fire area was subalpine firand lodgepole pine, with somelodgepole pine having a grassunderstory. Ten days after the firestarted, the RRT arrived at the

blaze, and the incident commanderallowed it to install the necessaryequipment.

RRT leaders met with the districtfire management officer (DFMO)for the Missoula Ranger District.The Lolo National Forest hadaccomplished extensive fuel treat-ments along the wildland/urban

interface where the fire had mademajor runs toward northwesternMissoula. The DFMO provided theteam with information about thefire’s spread and with maps show-ing the fuel treatments and otherland use activities conducted.

Choosing an area with burn poten-tial based on forecasted weatherand limited suppression resources,the RRT went to Blue MountainRoad. After advising the divisionsupervisor that they would beworking in the area, the team con-ducted a safety session and briefingon expected weather and potentialfire behavior. Lookouts were posted


Team members gathered data by measuring fuelconditions and fire behavior as fire passed

through landscapes with different treatmenthistories and fuel configurations.

Figure 2—Schematic showing sample layout of fire behavior equipment and fuels plots used for rapid-response, real-time monitoringand fire behavior research.

for safety as the team beganinstalling equipment and measur-ing fuels. Suppression forces suc-ceeded in holding the fire above aroad away from the research site.

That evening, RRT leaders decidedto move the equipment to a newarea to capture active fire behavior.Before the next morning’s briefing,team leaders met with the type 1team branch director, who recom-mended a location susceptible toactive fire. After assessing theweather and fire behavior forecastfor that day, team leaders decidedthat, although there were no fueltreatment sites in the area, theywould attempt to capture data onsites with contrasting vegetationconditions.

The RRT moved to a new site todetermine whether it could putdirect handline along the fire’sedge. The team leaders selected asite below a midslope road. Part ofthe area resembled a shaded fuel-break (fig. 3), and another part wassimilar to an untreated area.

The fire was very active below theselected research site—lookoutswere posted for the RRT’s safety.Helicopters dropping water werebeing used to hold the fire in sup-port of the hotshot crews. The RRTquickly installed the equipment,measured the fuels, and left thearea. Later that morning, two hot-shot crews in the area disengagedfrom their assignment due tounsafe conditions.

The next day, the RRT found thatthe area around the equipment had

burned with a high intensity (fig.4). Although the equipment wasslightly damaged, the team success-fully collected video and other data,including heat flux, rate of spread,and flame length. The results ofthis unique study on fire behaviorare expected soon.

Future PlansHaving met many initial objectives,the RRT is expanding its operationand seeking additional funding andcollaborators to:

• Raise the number of teams;• Increase the number of sensors

and modify the equipment towithstand higher temperatures;

• Continue to focus on areas withfuel treatments or other land useactivities;

• Provide data for a safety zonestudy; and

• Install sensors and equipment inwildland/urban interface areas.

For additional information, contactJoAnn Fites-Kaufman at 530-478-6151 (voice) or [email protected](email).

ReferencePollet, J.; Omi, P.N. 2002. Effect of thinning

and prescribed burning on wildfire fireseverity in ponderosa pine forests.International Journal of Wildland Fire.11(1): 1–10. ■


Figure 4—Research site on the 2003Black Mountain 2 Fire after fire burnedthrough the area. The camera was dam-aged due to the fire’s severity. Photo:Adaptive Management Services EnterpriseTeam, Lolo National Forest, MT, 2003.

Figure 3—A site resembling a shaded fuelbreak was chosen for collecting fire behaviordata during the 2003 Black Mountain 2 Fire on the Lolo National Forest in Montana.Photo: Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team, Lolo National Forest, MT, 2003.

Communication with keyplayers who sharedvaluable information

helped ensure projectsuccess.

Wildland firefighters knowthe importance of accu-rately pinpointing a fire

location. Retardant drops must hitthe correct target. Climate and ter-rain can dramatically affect a firemanagement plan. Now a newbudget system, Fire ProgramAnalysis (FPA), has boosted the significance of fire location databeyond successful firefighting (seethe sidebar on page 28). Under thenew plan, fire report accuracy, andespecially the fire locations onthose reports, will influence wherethe system indicates that equip-ment and positions are needed.

Everyone involved in the record-keeping chain—from initial alarmto dispatch, from data entry tobudget analysis—needs to know the subtleties of coordinate systemsto obtain the correct data and tokeep the FPA budgeting systemworking smoothly. This article isdesigned to help.

Dealing With DatumsThe two prominent location refer-encing systems used for fire loca-tions on fire reports are latitude/longitude (lat/long) and UniversalTransverse Mercator (UTM).Lat/long comes in a number ofvariants, and UTM is a system thatis based on narrow, north/southstrips of the earth, with a separategrid for each strip.

Because both lat/long and UTMhave their axis at an abstract loca-

tion in space, both are relative tothe shape of the Earth, which isrepresented in a datum. The worddatum is the singular of data, andin mapping it represents the pointor line of reference that is used as astarting location for measurement.As our understanding of the shapeof the Earth has changed, the frameof reference (i.e., datum) for map-ping has changed, and the “startingpoint” from which we measure haschanged as well.

The concept of a map datum is easyto understand if you think aboutthe average of tides on an oceanbeach. Over a long period of time—perhaps 20 years—an accurateaverage of low or high tides can bedeveloped. If average low tide is anindicator of where ocean ends andland begins, it gives a horizontalframe of reference. It is actuallyused on hydrographic charts. Thedatum provides a frame of refer-ence for where to put the “0,0”coordinate in grid space.

In the United States, wildland fire-fighters are most likely to encounterthree horizontal reference mapdatums:

• The North American Datum of1927 (NAD27);

• The North American Datum of1983 (NAD83); and

• The World Geodetic System of1984 (WGS84).

NAD27 was the most widely useddatum in the 20th century. It hadits reference point in northernKansas and was based on actualU.S. surveys. For mapping in the

era before global positioning sys-tems (GPSs) and geographic infor-mation systems (GISs), NAD27 pro-vided sufficient accuracy and mini-mal confusion because it was thestandard on USDI U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) topographic maps.

As satellite and electronic surveyequipment increased the accuracyof surveys, the USDI NationalGeodetic Survey introduced NAD83to serve as the new standard formapping in the United States. Thelower left corner of USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic quadrangle mapsproduced after the mid-1980s oftenoffers a set of coordinate ticks thatshow the difference between NAD27and NAD83 positions.

Unfortunately, the difference inlocations from one datum to anoth-er is not constant. In the lower 48States, this shift is usually withinthe range of 10 to 100 meters (11to 109 yards). In Alaska, the differ-ence can be as much as 200 meters(219 yards) and in Hawaii up to 400meters (437 yards).

With a shift from NAD27, based onoptical surveys, to NAD83, based ona mathematical model of the Earth’sshape, the coordinates recorded fora specific point on the landscapecan take on multiple meanings. Adifference of 100 meters (109yards), about the length of a footballfield, might seem insignificant butcan easily move the location of afire from Federal lands to private, orfrom land into water.

Many datum settings are availableon GPS units, each with its own


THE ABCS OF CORRECTLYMAPPING A FIREEd Delaney

Ed Delaney is the fire program data manag-er for the USDI National Park Service at theNational Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID.


specific point in space for “0,0”.The standard datum for the GPSsystem is WGS84. The primary dif-ference between NAD83 andWGS84 is that experts now knowthat the center of the Earth’s massis about 2.2 yards (2 m) away fromwhere it was thought to be whenNAD83 was developed. WGS84 haschanged to accommodate this new

knowledge, but NAD83 has not. Forall but the most sensitive surveyequipment, including a “recreation-al-grade” GPS unit, NAD83 andWGS84 are functional equivalents.

GPS users should know their units’datum settings. If a GPS unit is setto a datum intended for use inNepal or New Zealand, but the user

is trying to map the perimeter of afire in California, it might be hardfor the fire GIS specialist on theincident to figure out what’s wrong.The best practice is to standardizeequipment with the GIS specialist.When an incident team is involvedand there is no GIS or GPS special-ist, the plans section should con-firm the datum being used. Eitherway, complete records should bekept and transferred with the data,including user’s name; position;date and time; type of GPS unit;mode of travel (foot, vehicle, heli-copter, etc.); and the datum setting

Incorrectly mapped fire locations could distort theallocation of money and jobs.

New Importance of Fire LocationWe know where fires are when they occur, yet fireoccurrence databases have later misplaced manyfires for various reasons, including errors in writingthe reports, errors in data entry, and confusion oflatitude with longitude. A report in 2002 by theDesert Research Institute found that about 10 per-cent of the USDA Forest Service fire records wereunusable for reasons that included incorrect loca-tion and that nearly 30 percent of agency records inthe U.S. Department of the Interior were similarlyunusable (Brown and others 2002).

Where’s the Fire?Often, locations are strangely misplaced. Forinstance, when maps were made from fire occur-rence databases, numerous fires were reported inthe South Atlantic Ocean off the west coast ofAfrica. A point on the equator near the GalapagosIslands appears to be a tinderbox, and Greenlandand the Black Sea have erupted in flames, accordingto fire occurrence databases.

Fires show up all over the map partly because ofrecordkeeping systems. If a person leaves a numericfield blank, the systems automatically enter zerocoordinates. If a system is using latitude/longitudecoordinates, zero longitude falls on the GreenwichMeridian, running through England. Zero latitudefalls on the equator. In combination, the coordinatesput the location off of the west coast of Africa (zerolatitude, zero longitude). If zero/zero UniversalTransverse Mercator coordinates are picked up for afire on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the record-

ed coordinates fall in the Pacific Ocean near theGalapagos Islands (UTM zone 16, zero Easting andzero Northing).

Jobs Depend on ItAvoiding these errors is crucial under Fire ProgramAnalysis (FPA), the new Federal fire budgeting sys-tem slated to take effect in fiscal year 2005. UnderFPA, the accuracy of fire records will affect Federalallocation of equipment and jobs. Instead of agen-cies allocating funds according to their traditionalpractices, the interagency system will use the loca-tion of historical fires in the fire occurrence data-bases to model hypothetical fires.

In the past, the location data on fire reports (such asthose completed using the U.S. Department of theInterior’s DI–1202 form) were not formally used indecisionmaking in some agencies. When errors werefound, they sometimes were corrected at the locallevel, though not at the national level.

With the new program, the recorded location of his-torical fires will be part of the system that deter-mines where funding will go in the future. UnderFPA, location will also be used to tie together fuelcharacteristics, topography, and a weather stationfor fire weather data. Incorrect location informationcan sabotage these critical associations and influ-ence the allocation of fire management resources.For more information on FPA and its developmentprogress, check the FPA website <http://fpa.nifc.gov>.

http://fpa.nifc.gov


in the GPS unit. It’s a good practiceto take a GPS point at a knownlocation, like a benchmark, just toprovide a good reference point forthe GIS specialist.

Books that cover coordinate systems,map datums, and mapping in gener-al include Muehrcke and Muehrcke(1992) and Campbell (2000).

Map CoordinateSystemsOnly in the last 120 years has therebeen international agreement onwhere the zero line of longitude(the prime meridian) is. Prior to1884, the zero meridian in theUnited States went throughWashington, DC. The UTM zonesystem is based on latitude and lon-gitude, so that locations can beidentified based on distance from areference point.

Latitude/Longitude. Lat/long is aspherical coordinate system, so thelength of a degree of latitude is fair-ly constant from the Equator to theEarth’s poles, but the length of adegree of longitude changes withlatitude. At the Equator, a degree oflatitude and a degree of longitudeare both just under 70 miles (113km). At the poles, a degree of lati-tude is still nearly 70 miles (113km), but a degree of longitude con-verges to zero length at the Northand South Poles. Although lat/longis a coordinate system, it is not arectangular grid with even spacingin the X and Y dimensions.

Lat/long can be noted in severalformats. The most common isdegrees, minutes, and seconds(DMS). The location of the SpaceNeedle in Seattle in DMS is 47° 37’21” North latitude, 122° 20’ 57”West longitude (NAD83). This is 47degrees, 37 minutes, and 21 sec-

onds north of the Equator and 122degrees, 20 minutes, and 57 sec-onds west of the GreenwichMeridian, using NAD83. If thedatum is shifted to NAD27, thesame coordinates for the SpaceNeedle move the location about 690feet (210 m) to the southeast.

The lat/long notation used in GIS isdecimal degrees (DD). For eachcoordinate, you take the wholedegrees (e.g., 47°) and add minutesdivided by 60, plus seconds dividedby 3,600. For the Space Needle, lat-itude would be: 47 + (37/60) +(21/3,600), or 47.62249. Longitudewould be 122 + (20/60) +(57/3,600), or 122.3349. This is aCartesian coordinate system, withthe Equator serving as the zero axisfor latitude, and the GreenwichMeridian serving as the zero axisfor longitude. For a location inNorth America, the latitude coordi-nate is positive whereas the longi-tude is negative, because the loca-tion is in the upper left quadrant ofCartesian space. Thus, the SpaceNeedle in DD would be 47.6225,–122.3349. When working withdecimal degrees, firefighters shouldprovide a minimum of four signifi-cant digits to the right of the deci-mal place.

The Cartesian “X” coordinate inlat/long is longitude and the “Y” islatitude. The highest value latitudecan have is 90° (North or SouthPole), whereas the highest valuelongitude can register is 180° (mid-dle of the Pacific Ocean). Reversingcoordinates is a common error onfire report forms, especially east ofthe 90th Meridian. To avoid such

errors, I prefer thinking “long/lat”instead of the more common“lat/long.” It helps me remember X,Y coordinates, consistent with theUTM “Easting, then Northing.”

Universal Transverse Mercator.UTM is a worldwide system thatuses meters as its unit of measure.When two nearby locations areidentified by UTM coordinates,computing the distance in metersbetween them is simple.

When using the UTM system, eastis recorded first (“Easting”), thennorth (“Northing”). The coordinatepair is the distance in meters eastfrom a zero point, or coordinateaxis, and the distance in metersnorth from the Equator in theNorthern Hemisphere. There are 60zones, so the zone being measuredin must be recorded. In NorthAmerica, it is safe to assume thatthe coordinates are referring to thenorthern half of the UTM zone.

Coordinates for the Easting(Cartesian X-coordinate) have sixdigits to the left of the decimalplace. A coordinate without anydigits to the right of the decimalplace has the accuracy of onemeter, or about one yard. ANorthing (Cartesian Y-coordinate)for locations in the United States,measured north from the Equator,will have seven digits to the left ofthe decimal place. USGS topo-graphic quadrangles (1:24,000- or1:25,000-scale maps) will have onefull UTM coordinate along eachaxis, with six digits for the Eastingalong the top and bottom margins,and seven digits for the Northing

The two prominent location referencing systemsused for fire locations on fire reports are

latitude/longitude and Universal TransverseMercator.


along the left and right margins.Other UTM gridlines are shownwith the trailing three zeros delet-ed. Thus, the Space Needle is locat-ed at about 548,900 E, 5,274,100 N,Zone 10 North (fig. 1).

In the UTM system, there are 60zones that create north/south stripsfrom about 80° North latitude toabout 80° South latitude, bisectedby the Equator. Each zone is 6° oflongitude wide, and the zones arenumbered from 1 to 60, starting inthe Pacific Ocean (the west edge ofthe first zone is at 180° Longitude)and counting up toward the east.Thus, zone 1 is in the PacificOcean, Seattle is in Zone 10, NewYork is in zone 18, and Greenwich,UK is in zone 30.

Each zone, split at the Equator, hasa northern portion and a southernportion. Each zone is also bisectedby a meridian, or line of longitude.Zone 1, starting the system atabout 180°, straddles the 177° WestLongitude meridian. Zone 10 strad-dles 123° of West Longitude. Forthe northern portion of each zone,there is a coordinate axis (known asa “false origin”) that is placed onthe equator and to the west of theactual west boundary of the zone.This is so any measurement withinthe zone will be a positive number(east is measured only on the X-axis and north on the Y-axis).

The actual location of the “0,0”point for each zone is 500,000meters west of the central, orbisecting, meridian for the zone, onthe Equator. For those who still

play “Trivial Pursuit,” the X, Y ori-gin for the southern portion ofeach zone is a little different. TheX-axis zero point is still 500,000meters west of the central meridianfor the zone. The Y-axis zero point is1 million meters south of theEquator. In polar regions, there is adifferent system. Therefore, even inthe Southern Hemisphere, all UTMcoordinates are still positive num-bers, measuring Easting first,Northing second, and then specify-ing zone and hemisphere (southern).

Because the system ultimately isbased in lat/long, a spherical coor-dinate system, coordinates must bemeasured in the correct order(Easting first, then Northing). Thelength of a degree of longitude getsshorter when moving from theEquator toward either of the poles.If north from the equator weremeasured first, and then east froma point 500,000 meters west of thecentral meridian in the zone, coor-dinates would be consistently to thewest of where they should be on amap.

Accuracy Is Critical!Maps seem pretty simple, but thecoordinate systems can be confus-ing. Although map reading is now astandard part of wildland firefightertraining, using map coordinatesand map datums can still be a chal-lenge. It is critical in the field toidentify the correct location on themap to call in resources, to find themost efficient access, and to identi-fy safety zones.

Now, a new budgetary systemmakes correct fire location dataeven more critical. Inaccuratereports might mean money is sentto the wrong places. It is imperativethat firefighters continually reviewmap coordinate essentials andimprove their skills.

ReferencesCampbell, J. 2000. Map use and analysis.

New York: McGraw Hill.Muehrcke, P.C.; Muehrcke, J.O. 1992. Map

use. Madison, WI: J.P. Publications. ■

Figure 1—Map location of Seattle’s Space Needle using the Universal Transverse Mercator.The X coordinate (longitude) closest to the Space Needle is 549. The superscript indicatesthat the trailing zeros are not shown. The number of the gridline, 549,000, is larger thanthe coordinate for the Space Needle longitude because measurement is from west to east.The Y coordinate (latitude), without trailing zeros, is 5274 for 5,274,000 meters north.

Everyone involved in therecordkeeping chain

must know thesubtleties of map

coordinate systems.

For many years, the importanceof fire use by American Indiansin altering North American

ecosystems was underappreciatedor ignored. Now, there seems to bean opposite trend, as exemplified inthe pages of Fire ManagementToday (Summer 2004, volume64[3]).* It is common now to reador hear statements to the effectthat American Indians fired land-scapes everywhere and all the time,so there is no such thing as a “nat-ural” ecosystem. A myth of humanmanipulation everywhere in pre-Columbus America is replacing theequally erroneous myth of a totallypristine wilderness.

We believe that it is time to deflatethe rapidly spreading myth thatAmerican Indians altered all land-scapes by means of fire. In short,we believe that the case for land-scape-level fire use by AmericanIndians has been dramatically over-stated and overextrapolated.

Scant HistoricalRecordEarly-day accounts by Euro-Americans provide a weak basis forinterpreting precontact Indian cul-tures. As Williams (2004) points outin Fire Management Today,“European explorers and settlersrarely saw or understood the cause-


Stephen W. Barrett is a consulting fireecologist based in Kalispell, MT; Thomas W.Swetnam is a Professor of Dendrochronologyat the University of Arizona in Tucson, AZ,and Director of the Laboratory of Tree-RingResearch at the university; and William L.Baker is a Professor of Geography at theUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie WY.

INDIAN FIRE USE: DEFLATING THE LEGENDStephen W. Barrett, Thomas W. Swetnam, William L. Baker

The case for landscape-level fire use by AmericanIndians in all parts of North America has been

dramatically overstated.

Lightning activity over the town of Thompson, Manitoba, Canada, where extreme weatherconditions sparked a number of wildfires in 2003. In presettlement times, did lightningfires maintain most fire regimes in the West—or was it fires set by American Indians?Photo: Ministry of Natural Resources, Fire Management Centre, Dryden, ON 2003.

* The Summer 2004 issue of Fire Management Today (volume 64[3]) contains several articles on fire use byAmerican Indians: Karl Brauneis, “Fire Use During the Great Sioux War,” pp. 4–9; Gerald W. Williams, “AmericanIndian Fire Use in the Arid West,” pp. 10–14; Jon E. Keeley, “American Indian Influence on Fire Regimes inCalifornia’s Coastal Ranges,” pp. 15–16; and Hutch Brown, “Reports of American Indian Fire Use in the East,” pp. 17–22.


and-effect relationships between tra-ditional Indian land use practices andthe landscapes they found.” Clearly,their anecdotal vignettes were oftenheavily biased (Baker 2002). They donot bear out Williams’ (2004) sweep-ing assertions that:

• “ecological impacts were exten-sive,”

• “Indians carefully chose whereand when to burn,”

• “most of the acres burned were[likely] due to Indian-set fires,”and

• “[i]t seems highly unlikely thatthe extensive fire effects observedin the presettlement West, espe-cially at lower elevations, can beattributed to lightning.”

Such general assertions are basedon a scant historical record.Williams (2004) repeats Pyne’s(1982) overgeneralization that “themodification of the American conti-nent by fire at the hands of[American Indians] was the result ofrepeated, controlled surface burnson a cycle of one to three years.”The certitude and vast geographicsweep of this statement (“theAmerican continent”) is unjustified. The vast majority of written andoral accounts by Euro-Americansare not dispassionate observationsof the presettlement West, butrather anecdotes fraught withuncertainty, subjective opinion, andbias (Baker 2002). For instance,many early travelers evidently didnot recognize lightning as a major

cause of fires in the West, andmany Euro-Americans might havetherefore erroneously attributedfires to Indians, or perhaps they didso out of racism (Bahre 1994; Kayeand Swetnam 1999).

Most oral history and biological evi-dence of Indian fire use has beenirretrievably lost with the passageof time (Baker 2002; Barrett andArno 1999; Kaye and Swetnam1999). What little remains seemswoefully inadequate for derivingthe overly broad conclusions pre-sented by Williams (2002, 2004)and Pyne (1982).

Physical RecordWe prefer to address the issue fromscientific and ecological perspec-tives. To date, we have conductedthe only studies that provide statis-tically based empirical data fromtree rings to supplement informa-tion from oral and written accounts(Barrett and Arno 1982; Kaye andSwetnam 1999). The evidence cer-tainly suggests that both purposefuland unintentional burning byAmerican Indians occurred in par-ticular places and times, but not onscales as extensive or as continuousas some would suggest.

Burning occurred in some locales,apparently with some predictability,such as in well-traveled valleys ofthe Northern Rockies (Barrett andArno 1982, 1999). However, Indianfires might have been less frequentin other areas, even those dominat-ed by ponderosa pine forests.

In the dry ponderosa forests of theSouthwest, for example, purposeful

burning seems to have been highlylocalized and unpredictable (Kayeand Swetnam 1999; Swetnam andBaisan 1996; Swetnam and others2001). Moreover, purposeful burn-ing was probably rare to absent inwet or cold forest types, where cli-mate seems to be the limiting fac-tor for fire regimes (Agee 1993;Baker 2003; Barrett and others1991; Buechling and Baker 2004;Johnson and Larsen 1991).

Role of LightningLightning fires, including onsiteignitions and fires spreading fromother areas, were well capable ofmaintaining most fire regimes inthe West.* In remote locations inthe Southwest and adjacent areas inMexico, for example, fire historystudies have found no perceptibledecline in fire frequency after theremoval of American Indians in thelate 1800s (Swetnam and others2001). In those landscapes, lightningfires continued to burn well into the20th century, particularly in areaswithout intensive livestock grazingand organized fire suppression.

Even where onsite ignitions wererare, free-ranging (and potentiallylong-burning) lightning fires pre-sumably contributed to many sitefire histories. Because modern soci-ety has little experience withunhindered fires, some writersseem to incorrectly assume that

* Although Barrett and Arno (1982) might have inadver-tently contributed to the “inadequate lightning” myth,those authors were referring only to lightning potentialin the context of wilderness restoration.

The vast majority of written and oral accounts onIndian fire use are anecdotes fraught withuncertainty, subjective opinion, and bias.

Lightning fires, includingonsite ignitions and

lightning fires spreadingfrom other areas,

were well capable ofmaintaining most fireregimes in the West.


site fire history depended on localignition sources.

Contrary EvidenceIf Indian fire use was indeed ubiq-uitous, how does one explain thebroad mix of presettlement fireregimes (Arno 1980; Agee 1993;Barrett and Arno 1999; Swetnamand Baisan 1996)? In the InlandNorthwest, for example, up to 10different regimes have been identi-fied (Barrett 2004; Morgan and oth-ers 1998). Clearly, presettlementfires ranged from low-severityunderburns to high-severity crownfires, and site fire frequenciesranged from less than 10 years togreater than 500 years. In our view, writers such asWilliams (2002, 2004) and Pyne(1982) often create the misimpres-sion that Indians burned every lastacre of the West. Consider, forinstance, the suggestive title ofWilliams’ (2002) article, “AboriginalUse of Fire: Are There Any ‘Natural’Plant Communities?” Yet mostearly-day accounts suggest thatIndian fire use occurred largely ingrasslands and adjacent dry forests.For perspective, consider that dryforest types comprise only about 25percent of the forested terrain inthe Northern Rockies (Barrett2004). The remainder supportedwidely varying forest structure,composition, and fire regimes, withscant evidence of Indian-set fires.

Speculative VentureEmpirical evidence might allow usto infer which ecosystems andwhich geographic locales mighthave been most affected by Indian-set fires. However, the ecologicalevidence suggests that such fireswere probably rare or absent inmany areas.

Fire practices also likely differedamong tribes. Factors influencingfire use probably included environ-mental variables (such as vegeta-tion types and climate change),evolving lifeways (for example,before and after the acquisition ofhorses), shifting tribal territories,and demographic changes (such asdepopulation by disease).

Regrettably, most accounts ofIndian fire use are vignettes allow-ing little more than speculationabout the spatial and temporalscales of burning (Baker 2002).Consequently, describing Indians’role in presettlement fire regimeswill remain a highly speculativeventure for ecologists and histori-ans alike.

ReferencesAgee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific

Northwest forests. Washington, DC:Island Press.

Bahre, C.J. 1985. Wildfire in southeasternArizona between 1859 and 1890. DesertPlants. 7: 190–194.

Baker, W.L. 2002. Indians and fire in theRocky Mountains: The wilderness hypoth-esis renewed. In: Vale, T.R.(ed.). Fire,native peoples, and the natural landscape.Washington, DC: Island Press: 41–76.

Baker, W.L. 2003. Fires and climate inforested landscapes of the U.S. RockyMountains. In: Veblen, T.T.; Baker, W.L.;Montenegro, G.; Swetnam, T.W. (eds.).Fire and climate change in temperateecosystems of the western Americas.Ecol. Studies 160. New York: Springer-Verlag: 120–157.

Barrett, S.W. 2004. Fire regimes in theNorthern Rockies. Fire ManagementToday. 64(2): 32–38.

Barrett, S.W.; Arno, S.F. 1982. Indian firesas an ecological influence in theNorthern Rockies. Journal of Forestry.80(10): 647–650.

Barrett, S.W.; Arno, S. F. 1999. Indian firesin the Northern Rockies: Ethnohistoryand ecology. In: Boyd, R.T. (ed.). Indians,fire and land in the Pacific Northwest.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State UniversityPress: 50–64.

Barrett, S.W.; Arno, S.F.; Key, C.H. 1991.Fire regimes of western larch–lodgepolepine forests in Glacier National Park,Montana. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch. 21: 1711–1720.

Bessie, W.C.; Johnson, E.A. 1995. The rela-tive importance of fuels and weather onfire behavior in subalpine forests.Ecology. 76: 747–762.

Buechling, A.; Baker, W.L. 2004. A fire his-tory from tree rings in a high-elevationforest of Rocky Mountain National Park.Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34:1259–1273.

Johnson, E.A.; Larsen, C.P.S. 1991.Climatically induced change in fire fre-quency in the southern CanadianRockies. Ecology. 7(1): 194–201.

Kaye, M.W.; Swetnam, T.W. 1999. An assess-ment of fire, climate, and Apache historyin the Sacramento Mountains, NewMexico. Physical Geography. 20(4):305–330.

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A culturalhistory of wildland and rural fire.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Morgan, P.; Bunting, S.; Black, A.; Merril,T.; Barrett, S.W. 1998. Fire regimes in theInterior Columbia River Basin: Past andpresent. In: Fire management under fire(adapting to change). Proceedings of theInterior West Fire Council Meeting andProgram; 1–4 November 1994; Coeurd’Alene, ID. Fairfield, WA: InternationalAssociation of Wildland Fire: 77–82.

Swetnam, T.W.; Baisan, C.H. 1996.Historical fire regime patterns in theSouthwestern United States since A.D.1700. In: Allen, C.D. (ed.). Fire effects insouthwestern forests. Proceedings of theSecond La Mesa Fire Symposium; 29–31March 1994; Los Alamos, NM. Gen. Tech.Rep. RM–GTR–286. Fort Collins, CO:USDA Forest Service, Rocky MountainResearch Station.

Swetnam, T.W.; Betancourt, J.L. 1990.Fire—Southern Oscillation relations inthe Southwestern United States. Science.249: 1017–1020.

Swetnam, T.W.; Baisan, C.H.; Kaib, J.M.2001. Forest fire histories in the skyislands of La Frontera. In: Webster, G.L.;Bahre, C.J. (eds.). Changing plant life ofLa Frontera: Observations on vegetationin the United States/Mexico borderlands.Albuquerque, NM: University of NewMexico Press: 95–119.

Describing the Indian role in presettlement fireregimes will remain a highly speculative venture

for ecologists and historians alike.


Williams, G.W. 2002. Aboriginal use of fire:Are there any “natural” plant communi-ties? In: Kay, C. (ed.). Wilderness andpolitical ecology: Aboriginal influencesand the original

state of nature. Salt Lake City, UT:University of Utah Press: 179–214.

Williams, G.W. 2004. American Indian fireuse in the arid West. Fire ManagementToday. 64(3): 10–14. ■

Additional Reading Editor’s note: The following works also pertain to the debate over practices and ecological impacts associated with fire use by American Indians.

• Boyd, R., ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest.Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

• Lewis, H.T.; Ferguson, T.A. 1988. Yards, corridors, and mosaics:How to burn a boreal forest. Human Ecology. 16(1): 57–77.

• Stewart, O. 2002. Forgotten fires: Native Americans and the tran-sient wilderness. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

• Pyne, S. 2001. Fire: A brief history. Seattle, WA: University ofWashington Press.

• Pyne, S. 2003. Review of Thomas Vale, ed., Fire, Native Peoples,and the Natural Landscape. Restoration Ecology. 11(2): 257–259.

The August 2004 issue of theCanadian Journal of ForestResearch (volume 34[8]) is

devoted to a special topic: “TheInternational Crown Fire ModellingExperiment (ICFME) in Canada’sNorthwest Territories: Advancingthe Science of Fire Behaviour.”Running from 1994 to 2001 at asite about 30 miles (50 km) northof Fort Providence, the ICFME wasa major international wildland fireresearch effort organized by theCanadian Forest Service and theForest Management Division in theDepartment of Resources, Wildlifeand Economic Development(DRWED) of the Government ofNorthwest Territories (GNWT), withsubstantial cooperation from theUSDA Forest Service.

The special issue features 10 arti-cles. The first article presents anoverview and introduction toICFME (Stocks and others 2004a).The other nine articles focus onsome of the main research studiescarried out during the course of theICFME, including:

• Several aspects of crown firebehavior (Butler and others2004a, 2004b; Stocks and others2004b; Taylor and others 2004);

• Firefighter safety (Putnam andButler 2004);

• The wildland/urban interface(Cohen 2004);


Dr. Marty Alexander is a senior fire behav-ior research officer with the CanadianForest Service, Northern Forestry Centre,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. At the time of this writing, he was on assignment as asenior researcher with the Wildland FireOperations Research Group, ForestEngineering Research Institute of Canada,Hinton, Alberta, Canada.

LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTTAKES SOME OF THE MYSTERYOUT OF CROWN FIRESMartin E. Alexander

“What you guysenvisioned and so many

of us worked on willmake fire history. Lotsof excellent work, data,

concepts andtechniques to stoke theresearch fires for a long

time to come.”– Dr. Ted Putnam (2004)


• Smoke chemistry (Payne andothers 2004);

• Tree regeneration (de Groot andothers 2004); and

• Charcoal deposits in lake sedi-ments (Lynch and others 2004).

Article abstracts are available at<http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_tocs_e?cjfr_cjfr8-04_34>. To obtain a single copy,contact André Séguin, SubscriptionOffice, NRC Research Press,National Research Council Canada,Montreal Road, Building M-55,Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, 613-993-9084 (voice), [email protected] (e-mail). For more infor-mation, visit the ICFME Website at<http://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/research/environment/icfme/icfme_e.htm>.

The proceedings of the 22nd TallTimbers Fire Ecology Conference(Engstrom and others 2004) alsocontains 18 papers from the postersession (e.g., Lavoie and Alexander2004) and a special session onICFME (e.g., Beck and Armitage2004) organized and comoderatedby the author and Rick Lanoville(GNWT-DRWED Forest ManagementDivision). The conference proceed-ings are available for purchase fromthe Tall Timbers Research Station(<http://www.ttrs.org>).

Finally, for a detailed description of the jack pine–black spruce fueltype associated with the experimen-tal burning carried out during the

ICFME project, one should consultAlexander and others (2004). A copy can be ordered through theCanadian Forest Service onlinebookstore at <http://bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/default.htm>.

References Alexander, M.E.; Stefner, C.N.; Mason, J.A.;

Stocks, B.J.; Hartley, G.R.; Maffey, M.E.;Wotton, B.M.; Taylor, S.W.; Lavoie, N.;Dalrymple, G.N. 2004. Characterizing thejack-pine–black spruce fuel complex ofthe International Crown Fire ModellingExperiment (ICFME). Inf. Rep. NOR-X-393. Edmonton, AB: Canadian ForestService, Northern Forestry Centre.

Beck, J.A.; Armitage, O.B. 2004. Diurnal firefuel moisture and FFMC characteristicsat northern latitudes. In: Engstrom, R.T.;Galley, K.E.M.; de Groot, W.J., eds.Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers FireEcology Conference: Fire in Temperate,Boreal, and Montane Ecosystems, 2001October 15–18; Kananaskis, AB.Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers ResearchStation: 211–221.

Butler, B.W.; Cohen, J.; Latham, D.J.;Schuette, R.D.; Sopko, P; Shannon, K.S.;Jimenez, D.; Bradshaw, L.S. 2004a.Measurements of radiant emissive powerand temperatures in crown fires.Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34:1577–1587.

Butler, B.W.; Finney, M.A.; Andrews, P.L.;Albini, F.A. 2004b. A radiation–drivenmodel for crown fire spread. CanadianJournal of Forest Research. 34:1588–1599.

Cohen, J.D. 2004. Relating flame radiationto home ignition using modeling andexperimental crown fires. CanadianJournal of Forest Research. 34:1616–1626.

de Groot, W.J.; Bothwell, P.M.; Taylor, S.W.;Wotton, B.M.; Stocks, B.J.; Alexander,M.E. 2004. Jack pine regeneration andcrown fires. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch. 34: 1634–1641.

Engstrom, R.T.; Galley, K.E.M.; de Groot,W.J. (eds). 2004. Proceedings of the 22ndTall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference:

Fire in Temperate, Boreal, and MontaneEcosystems; 2001 October 15–18;Kananaskis, AB. Tallahassee, FL: TallTimbers Research Station.

Lavoie, N.; Alexander, M.E. 2004.Experimental reburns 1–4 years afterhigh-intensity crown fire. In: Engstrom,R.T.; Galley, K.E.M.; de Groot, W.J., eds.Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers FireEcology Conference: Fire in Temperate,Boreal, and Montane Ecosystems. 2001October 15–18; Kananaskis, AB.Tallahassee, FL; Tall Timbers ResearchStation: 229

Lynch, J.A.; Clark, J.S.; Stocks, B.J. 2004.Charcoal production, dispersal, and depo-sition from the Fort Providence experi-mental fire: interpreting fire regimesfrom charcoal records in boreal forests.Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34:1642–1656.

Omi, P.N. 2004. Reflections on Tall Timbers22 and September 11—a conference sum-mary. In: Engstrom, R.T.; Galley, K.E.M.;de Groot, W.J., eds. Proceedings of the22nd Tall Timbers Fire EcologyConference: Fire in Temperate, Boreal,and Montane Ecosystems. 2001 October15–18; Kananaskis, AB. Tallahassee, FL:Tall Timbers Research Station: 324–326.

Payne, N.J.; Stocks, B.J.; Robinson, A.;Wasey, M.; Strapp, J.W. 2004. Combustionaerosol from experimental crown fires ina boreal forest jack pine stand. CanadianJournal of Forest Research. 34:1627–1633.

Putnam, T. 2004. Personal written commu-nication. Fire equipment specialist(retired), USDA Forest Service, MissoulaTechnology Development Center,Missoula, MT.

Putnam, T; Butler, B.W. 2004. Evaluatingfire shelter performance in experimentalcrown fires. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch. 34: 1600–1615.

Stocks, B.J.; Alexander, M.E.; Lanoville, R.A.2004a. Overview of the InternationalCrown Fire Modelling Experiment(ICFME). Canadian Journal of ForestResearch. 34: 1543–1547.

Stocks, B.J.; Alexander, M.E.; Wotton, B.M.;Stefner, C.N.; Flannigan, M.D.; Taylor,S.W.; Lavoie, N.; Mason, J.A.; Hartley,G.R.; Maffey, M.E.; Dalrymple, G.N.;Blake, T.W.; Cruz, M.G.; Lanoville, R.A.2004b. Crown fire behaviour in a north-ern jack pine–black spruce forest.Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34:1548–1560.

Taylor, S.W.; Wotton, B.M.; Alexander, M.E.;Dalrymple, G.N. 2004. Variation in windand crown fire behaviour in a northernjack pine–black spruce forest. CanadianJournal of Forest Research. 34:1561–1576. ■

“And I believe that the fire pioneers, wherever theymay be, would have to share some awe (and

perhaps some envy) over the International CrownFire Modelling Experiment…”

– Dr. Phil Omi (2004), closing address at the 22nd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference


TREATMENT AREA SAVES RANGER STATIONPaul Keller

When the Rodio-ChediskiFire raced toward theBlack Mesa Ranger District

on Arizona’s Apache-SitgreavesNational Forest, the outlook for theranger station and other buildingswas grim. Suddenly, the crown firedropped and skipped and burned itsway through the trees past thebuildings.

District Forester Dave Maurer cred-ited the 100-acre (41-ha) SouthsideDemonstration Treatment Areawith altering the fire’s behavior andsaving the buildings. The treatmentarea was a public showcase to illus-trate the function and appearanceof managed stands. Saving theranger station was an unexpectedbonus.

To create the treatment area, thedistrict removed the smaller trees…every tree up to 16 inches (41 cm)in diameter…and then prescribe-burned. The treatment methodreduced the basal area of the forestfrom 250 square feet (23 m2) to 40square feet (9 m2) per acre. “If we had only thinned up to 12inches [31 cm] in diameter, thesestands would still have been toodense,” said Maurer. “They wouldhave carried the fire.”

The openings created within thetreatment area were clear of brushand ground fuels. That, saidMaurer, “enabled us to burn out ina fairly safe manner.” He added,“There’s no question that this stand[treatment] contributed to stoppingthe fire from entering the rangerstation.” ■

Paul Keller, a former hotshot and journal-ist, is a contract writer/editor for the USDA Forest Service’s Fire and AviationManagement Staff, Washington Office,Washington, DC.

The district removedsmaller trees and

prescribe-burned, savingthe ranger station fromcrown fire when Rodeo-

Chediski burnedthrough.

A 100-acre (41-ha) treatment “thinning and burning” saved these ponderosa pines fromRodeo-Chediski by keeping the fire out of their crowns. Photo: Tom Iraci, USDA ForestService, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR, 2002.


GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Editorial PolicyFire Management Today (FMT) isan international quarterly maga-zine for the wildland fire communi-ty. FMT welcomes unsolicited man-uscripts from readers on any sub-ject related to fire management.Because space is a consideration,long manuscripts might beabridged by the editor, subject toapproval by the author; FMT doesprint short pieces of interest toreaders.

Submission GuidelinesYour manuscript may be hand-writ-ten, typed, or word-processed, andyou may submit it either by e-mailor mail. If you submit your manu-script by e-mail, send it to eitherthe general manager or the manag-ing editor at one of the followingaddresses. If you submit your man-uscript by regular mail or courierservice, send it to Managing EditorHutch Brown.

General manager:USDA Forest ServiceAttn: Melissa Frey, F&AM Staff Mail Stop 1107, 1400 IndependenceAvenue, SWWashington, DC 20250-1107tel. 202-205-0955, fax 202-205-1401e-mail: [email protected]

Managing editor:USDA Forest ServiceAttn: Hutch Brown, Office of the

Chief4NW Yates, 201 14th Street, SWWashington, DC 20024tel. 202-205-0896, fax 202-205-1765e-mail: [email protected]

Author Information. Include thecomplete name(s), title(s), affilia-tion(s), and address(es) of the

author(s), as well as telephone andfax numbers and e-mail informa-tion. If the same or a similar manu-script is being submitted elsewhere,include that information also.

Release Authorization. Non-FederalGovernment authors and coauthorsmust sign a release to allow theirwork to be in the public domainand on the World Wide Web. Inaddition, all photos require a writ-ten release by the photographer.The author and photo release formsare available from General ManagerMelissa Frey.

Logo. Authors who are affiliatedshould submit a camera-ready logofor their agency, institution, ororganization.

Electronic files. If you are mailing aword-processed manuscript, submitit on a 3-1/2 inch, IBM-compatibledisk. Please label all disks carefullywith name(s) of file(s) and system(s)used. Submit electronic text files,whether by e-mail or on a disk, inone of these formats: WordPerfect5.1 for DOS; WordPerfect 7.0 orearlier for Windows 95; MicrosoftWord 6.0 or earlier for Windows 95;Rich Text format; or ASCII.

Do not embed illustrations (such as photos, maps, charts, andgraphs) in the electronic file for themanuscript. Wal w.each illustrationin a standard interchange formatsuch as EPS, TIFF, or JPEG, accom-panied by a high-resolution (prefer-ably laser) printout. For charts andgraphs, include the raw data neededto reconstruct them.

Style. Authors are responsible forusing wildland fire terminologythat conforms to the latest stan-

dards set by the National WildfireCoordinating Group under theNational Interagency IncidentManagement System. FMT uses thespelling, capitalization, hyphen-ation, and other styles recommend-ed in the United States GovernmentPrinting Office Style Manual, asrequired by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Authors should use theU.S. system of weight and measure,with equivalent values in the met-ric system.

Try to keep titles concise anddescriptive; subheadings and bullet-ed material are useful and helpreadability. As a general rule ofclear writing, use the active voice(e.g., write, “Fire managers know...”and not, “It is known...”). Providespellouts for all abbreviations.Consult recent issues (at <http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/index.html>) forplacement of the author’s name,title, agency affiliation, and loca-tion, as well as for style of para-graph headings and references.

Tables. Tables should be logical andunderstandable without reading thetext. Include tables at the end ofthe manuscript.

Photos and Illustrations. Clearlylabel all photos and illustrations(figure 1, 2, 3, etc.; photograph A,B, C, etc.). At the end of the manu-script, include clear, thorough fig-ure and photo captions labeled inthe same way as the correspondingmaterial (figure 1, 2, 3; photographA, B, C; etc.). Captions should makephotos and illustrations under-standable without reading the text.For photos, indicate the name andaffiliation of the photographer andthe year the photo was taken.


PHOTO CONTEST ANNOUNCEMENTFire Management Today (FMT)invites you to submit your best fire-related images to be judged in ourannual competition. Judging beginsafter the first Friday in March ofeach year.

AwardsAll contestants will receive a CDwith the images remaining aftertechnical and safety reviews.Winning images will appear in afuture issue of FMT and will bepublicly displayed at the USDAForest Service’s national office inWashington, DC. Winners in eachcategory will receive:

• 1st place—Camera equipmentworth $300 and a 20- by 24-inchframed copy of your image.

• 2nd place—A 16- by 20-inchframed copy of your image.

• 3rd place—An 11- by 14-inchframed copy of your image.

• Honorable mention—An 8- by 10-inch framed copy of your image.

Categories• Wildland fire• Prescribed fire• Wildland/urban interface fire• Aerial resources• Ground resources• Miscellaneous (fire effects; fire

weather; fire-dependent commu-nities or species; etc.)

Rules• The contest is open to everyone.

You may submit an unlimitednumber of entries taken at anytime. No photos judged in previ-ous FMT contests may be entered.

• You must have the right to grantthe Forest Service unlimited useof the image, and you mustagree that the image will becomepublic domain. Moreover, theimage must not have been previ-ously published.

• We prefer original slides or nega-tives; however, we will accept dupli-cate slides or high-quality prints(for example, those with goodfocus, contrast level, and depth offield). Note: We will not returnyour slides, negatives, or prints.

• We will also accept digital imagesif the image was shot at the high-est resolution using a camerawith at least 2.5 megapixels or ifthe image was scanned at 300lines per inch or equivalent witha minimum output size of 5" x7". Digital image files should beTIFFs or highest quality JPGs.

• You must indicate only one com-petition category per image. Toensure fair evaluation, we reservethe right to change the competi-tion category for your image.

• You must provide a detailed cap-tion for each image. For example:A Sikorsky S–64 Skycrane deliv-ers retardant on the 1996 ClarkPeak Fire, Coronado National

Forest, AZ. Photo: name, profes-sional affiliation, town, state,year image captured.

• A panel of experienced judgesdetermines the winners. Its deci-sion is final.

• We will eliminate photos fromcompetition if they are obtainedby illegal or unauthorized accessto restricted areas; lack detailedcaptions; have date stamps; showunsafe firefighting practices(unless that is their express pur-pose); or are of low technical qual-ity (for example, have soft focus orshow camera movement).

• You must complete and sign therelease granting the USDA ForestService rights to use yourimage(s). Mail your completedrelease with your entry or fax it(970-295-5815) at the same timeyou e-mail digital images.

Mail entries to:USDA Forest ServiceFire Management Today Photo

ContestMadelyn Dillon2150 Centre Ave. • Bldg. A, Ste. 361Fort Collins, CO 80526 ore-mail images and captions to:[email protected] and fax signed release form to970-295-5815 (attn: Madelyn Dillon)

Postmark DeadlineFirst Friday in March

Sample Photo Release StatementEnclosed is/are (number) image(s) for publication by the USDA Forest Service. For each image submitted, the contest category is indicated and a detailed caption is enclosed. I have the authority to give permission to theForest Service to publish the enclosed image(s) and am aware that, if used, it/they will be in the public domain andappear on the World Wide Web.

Contact information:Name Institutional affiliation, if any

Home or business address

Telephone number E-mail address