FIRE, THE FOREST REJUVENATOR
by DENNIS M. DOWD
In the past 100 years, we have pop-ulated the forest interface where fire has always been an elemental tool in maintaining a healthy forest. The most difficult concept for structural and wildland firefighters to accept is that forests and wildlands are supposed to burn. At the same time, the remaining urban and suburban properties require even more privacy, and greenbelts of flammable materials interconnect them. Thus, structural exposures be-come part of the forest fuel load and the job description for structural and wildland firefighters. No longer can we afford to ignore the relationship between structures and the wildlands in our communities.
According to Christina Rossomando, in her technical report for the U.S. Fire Administration, “the `no fire` rule may have helped create the huge accumulations of fuels that contributed to the ferocity of the Yellow-
stone fires.” Historically and politically, the Bambi mythology has dictated forest management in the form of the “no fire” rule. Bambi, of course, fled the forest in the face of a running crown fire, losing his home and all his friends. In reality, most animals simply get out of the way of a forest fire and return almost immediately. For example, mice go to their burrows and wait for the fire to pass, and ground squirrels naturally hibernate in the summer drought. Once the fire has passed, they return to the surface. As a result, the fire is a bonanza for the great horned owl and other birds of prey, with the duff and flash fuels burned away.
In the 19th century, Bernard Fernow proclaimed fire the “bane of American forests” brought on by “bad habits and loose morals.” In 1934, Forest Service Chief Ferdinand Silcox announced that “every fire would be doused by 10 o`clock the next morning.” In 1988, Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson blasted the National Park Service for having “destroyed, sterilized, and blackened Yellowstone Park to the grey depths of any root system.”
Smoky Bear and his shovel became the political symbol; his message was “Only you can prevent forest fires.” In reality, we can see that it should read, “You only can postpone forest fires.” In defense of Smoky and his message, he has made citizens aware of the dangers of fires. On the other hand, neither Smoky nor the senator can see “the forest for the trees” when it comes to managing the forests. Interfering with the natural cycle in the forest by postponing fire creates an unmanageable fuel load (Figure 1).
Compounding the interface fuel load problem are the “hoarders.” These conservation zealots insist that nothing be done with the pristine forest. They will wonder why every 50 or so years the accumulated biomass becomes a conflagration and probably takes their houses with it. An example of preventive and proactive control of the biomass meets with resistance when millions are spent on suppression and little is available for rejuvenation. Wildland firefighting is often big business.
PREVENTION PARADIGM
Programmed burns conducted by the local fire department can reduce the fire load. The prescribed burn allows the fuel within the forest to be removed and makes it possible to manipulate the ecosystem through prescribed fire. California law requires that homeowners have 30 feet of “defensible space” separating their homes and other structures from wooded areas.
Compare the natural event of a flood to that of a fire. This interesting proactive wildland management comparison comes from our rivers. The waterways are managed so that engineering benchmarks refer to the 25-, 50-, and 100-year flood. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers builds dams and purchases flood plains for water control. Fire, however, has been left to rapid response and a Smoky-Bear mentality. Only recently have public protection policies and community-based activities begun to address the wildland/urban interface danger.
On a more somber note, Smoky has never stopped swinging that shovel. The shovel seems symbolic of the efforts of firefighters, pressured by public policy to put their lives on the line for a rock-rabble mountain that is supposed to burn.
In their article “Pushed to the Limit” (NFPA Journal, March/April 1995), Woody Williams and Casey Grant list more than 100 major fires that occurred in 1994. They compare two “benchmark” fires: the Mann Gulch Fire in Helena, Montana, in August 1949, and the South Canyon Fire in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, in July 1994. Both compelling stories tell of the tactics and heroic efforts of the firefighters who died. Wildfires do not wax and wane in proportion to the amount of resistance offered by suppression forces. Instead, they are detected early and controlled when they are small. Smoky`s shovel, in both cases, represents the hand tools and tactics the firefighters used on those rock-rabble mountains. The tactical metaphoric shovel puts the lives of firefighters in harm`s way.
A recent TV documentary on the Mann Gulch Fire is moving and ironic: It shows the white crosses marking the graves of the bravest of the brave in waving fields of wildflowers, grasses, and brush–in other words, the gulch getting ready for the next fire.
LIP SERVICE AT YOUR NEXT INTERFACE FIRE
So, why is Smoky taking such a hit? Because from 1949 to 1996, we have learned a lot and forgotten a lot. For example, in 1977 the incident command system (ICS) was developed to manage the destructive wildland fires in the west. The ICS was adaptable and offered firefighter safety. Many “structural” departments embraced the ICS concept. The National Fire Academy developed a 12-hour “hands-off” program that has been delivered in most communities in Massachusetts. A cornerstone to ICS is to prioritize an incident. In order of importance, the incident commander considers life safety first, incident stabilization second, and Property conservation last, or LIP. Structural firefighters and commanders recognize these three priorities as guidelines to their actions on the fireground.
The firefighter and commander in the wildland are guided by 10 standard firefighting orders, 13 fire situations that shout “watch out,” and four common denominators (Firefighters Guide, pp. 51.1 and 51.2). One order is “Don`t fall asleep on the fire line.” Although this is certainly an important instruction, does this order pass the “straight-face test” when given to a structural firefighter?
In contrast, applying the ICS concept of resource (personnel) management to wildland firefighting would consider rehabilitation and replacement for the tired firefighter. Risk/benefit analysis, a component of the management system of structural ICS, would determine that the incident is overwhelming the resources and it`s time to draw another line in the sand to fight the battle. In other words, the structural firefighter is guided by three incident priorities, whereas the wildland firefighter has to remember 27 directives.
REJUVENATION OF YELLOWSTONE
Another irony common in structure and wildland firefighting is that we describe a fire as a loss. We`ve all had discussion about the $50,000 fire in a $400,000 home as a “loss.” Realistically, this was a $350,000 save. At the same time, go back to Sen. Simpson on the floor of the Senate and his “destruction” of Yellowstone. In contrast to this position, we find that fire is necessary for breaking the seed-coat dormancy (sorotany) of the lodge pole pine and eliminating the damping of fungus that affects new seedlings in the duff: The forest mosaic produces patterns of burned and unburned areas for safe havens, undamaged roots flourish with the nutrients provided by the “carbon cycle,” and wildflowers fill the meadows when exposed to the sun and support bees and other pollinators. Thus, the fire moves energy and nutrients through the food chain. Ted William in his article in Sierra writes, “Smoky Bear won`t shut up long enough to notice the new blossoms in a scorched meadow or the pinecones raining fresh seeds on his head.”
No longer can we afford not to recognize the relationship between structures and the wildlands in our communities. The NFPA and the National Wildland Urban Interface Program feature three outstanding videos called Firewize Landscaping. These programs address defensible space; fire-resistant construction; location of homes; and fuel modification with lawns, landscaping, and forest maintenance. Implementing these program features will result in improved public and firefighter safety, reduced personal and private property loss, and reduced suppression costs. Finally, as a firefighter on the line or the IC, address the incident priorities and apply LIP service for safety on the fireground.
Endnotes
Grant, Casey, “Mann Gulch Forever,” NFPA Journal, Mar./April, 1995.
Pyne, Stephen Jr. 1984. Introduction to Wildland Fire. John Wiley & Sons.
Rossomando, Christina. Wildlands Fire Management: Report 045, U. S. Fire Administration, TriData Corp.
Teie, William C. 1994. Firefighters Handbook on Wildland Firefighting. Deer Valley Press, Rescue, Calif.
Williams, Ted. “Only you can postpone forest fires,” Sierra, July-Aug. 1995.
Williams, Woody, “Pushed to the Limit,” NFPA Journal, Quincy, Mass., Mar./Apr. 1995.
 |
 |
Moisture meter. Structural fuels have a relatively stable moisture content in contrast with wildland fuels. Temperature and humidity will affect the fine fuel moisture content within 20 to 60 minutes. Large-diameter fuels (from three to eight inches) become a heat sink and add to the radiant and convected heat during pyrolysis. (Photo by Jack Peltier.)
DENNIS M. DOWD is a member of the Dover (MA) Fire Department and has been president of his own company for 35 years. He has degrees in horticulture, fire science and safety technology, and urban forest management and is a candidate for a master`s in education at the University of Massachusetts/Boston. He is an instructor at Middlesex Community College and the Massachusetts Fire Fighting Academy.
