agriculture forest service management notes

I'I

,"

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest service

Volume 52, NO.21991

> '

.. ~ ,-,

< •

FireManagementNotes

",--'

-,-~

_. ,

FireManagementNotes An international quarterly periodical

devoted to forest fire management

Contents3 Aviation in Fire Management: Its Beginning in 1919

and TodayFred A. Fuchs

7 Mark 1II Aerial Ignition: A Field PerspectiveJohn Fort

10 Workforce Diversity Projects: Creativity inRecruitment

Elizabeth Kalish and Brenden Tu

13 CDF's Helicopter Program: What's HappeningArthur H. Trask

15 Fire Behavior Training-a Look at Some UpcomingChanges

Donald W. Carlton

22 A Fire Protection Analysis for the Beaver CreekWatershed: A Technical Fire Management FinalProject

Thomas A. Wordell

30 Improving Airtanker Delivery PerformanceCharles W. George and Fred A. Fuchs

40 The Heavy-Lift Helicopter and Fire Retardant Dropsat the Stormy Fire Complex

Lynn R. Biddison

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Volume 52, NO.21991

19 Summer Conference: Forest Fire LookoutAssociation

27 Technical Fire Management TrainingReid M. Kenady and Laurie Perrett

29 Health Hazards of SmokeDick Mangan

37 Field Use of Improved Airtankers and RetardantTanks

Dave Nelson

38 A Tribute to Smokejumpers: Dedication of theNational Wildland Firefighters Memorial

Tracey Nimlos and Timothy Eldridge

43 Rebuilding FEPP Engines: A Nebraska InnovationImproves Quality

Eric J. Rasmussen

Special Feature

20 Retired Firefighting Aircraft Go on DisplayFred A. Fuchs

Fire Management Notes is published by the Forest Service of the United SlatesDepartment of Agriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary of Agriculture has determinedthat the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public businessrequired by law of this Department.

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

Send suggestions and articles to Chief, Forest Service (Alln: Fire Management Notes),P.O. Box 96090, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20090--6090.

Short Features

5 Seven Sharp Sherpas-"New" Planes Soaring inPopularity

John Hecht

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

F. Dale Robertson, ChiefForest Service

l.A. Amicarella, DirectorFire and Aviation Management

Francis R. RussGeneral Manager

Doris N. CelarierEditor

>.

6 Keeping Track of FEPP: Internal ControlFrancis R. Russ

Front Co~; Tanker 27, the first P-3A to be modilied as an air tanker, started servicein 1990.

2

U.s. Department of Agriculture programs, services,and employment are open to all on thebasis of merit, without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability.Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any U.S.Department 01 Agriculture-related activity should immediately contact the Secretary ofAgriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

Disclaimer: The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for theinformation and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an officialendorsement of any product or service by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Individualauthors are responsible lor the technical accuracy 01 the materiel presented in FireManegemerlt Notes.

Fire Management Notes

Aviation in Fire Management:Its Beginning in 1919 and TodayFred A. Fuchs

Assistant director, USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management, Washington, DC

Closeup view of de Havilland DH-4 on fire detection patrol (1919).

This year the USDA Forest Service is celebrating the lOOthanniversary of the beginning of theNational Forest System. Twentyeight years after the first forestreserve, the Yellowstone Park Timber Land Reserve, was set aside in1891 and 16 years after the airplanefirst flew in 1903 at Kitty Hawk.NC, the Forest Service began usingaircraft in support of wildfire suppression. This fledgling effort usedthe U.S. Army Ninth Corps. commanded by Major Henry A. "Hap"Arnold, to fly World War I CurtissIN-40's and de Havilland DH-4B'son daily detection patrols. In 1919,during the first year of air patrol, thedozen of these aircraft used in California from Mt. Lassen to theMexican border discovered 550 fires.The patrol team reported their fireinformation to fire control officers byparachute or carrier pigeon in thefield. From this promising beginning,aviation has grown to occupy a majorfire suppression role.

What's New in Aircraft in the1990's

Several new and exciting equipment developments in aviation forfire management are taking placeright now. The older, piston-enginedairplanes, now difficult to maintainbecause parts are in short supply, arebeing replaced with turbine-poweredairplanes. In the 1990 fire season,the Forest Service extensively usedfour Lockheed C-130A's, two Lockheed P-3A's. and the S-2F with aMarsh turbine conversion-the' 'thirdgeneration" of turbine-powered airtankers in firefighting service.

Sixteen years after the first airplane flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903,the Forest Service began using aircraft in support of wildfiresuppression.

Seven C-23A's (Sherpas), twinturboprop aircraft used to support theforces at North Atlantic Treaty Organization's bases, were acquired asU.S. Air Force excess property in1990. The use of the Sherpas, primarily in the smokejumper program,will increase fire suppression effectiveness and reduce costs: Operatingthe Sherpas. which carry a largepayload, is less expensive than usingcontract operators' airplanes. Thatthe fireflghting community now usesthe Sherpas. C-130A's, and P-3A'sis based in good part on the streogthof communication between ForestService Fire and Aviation Manage-

ment and the military services andthe support of the General ServicesAdministration (GSA) and its Personal Property Management DivisionBranch headed by Staff Director StanDuda. All military excess property istransferred to Federal agenciesthrough the GSA.

Another exciting accomplishmentin aircraft improvement is the"remanufacture" of the last two Forest Service DC-3's in operation. Asthe DC-3's-the backbone of thesmokejumper program for yearsaged and their piston engines becameless reliable, most were replaced withde Havilland Twin Otters. The TwinOtters, which were unable to carry a20-person fire crew or as manysmokejumpers as a DC-3, did notcompletely meet the needs of thesmokejumper program. After anextensive IO-year search for a DC-3replacement aircraft. it was decidedthat modernization of the DC-3 was

1991 Volume 52, Number 2 3

Pilot and copilot in de Havilland DH-4 prepared/or fire detection fttghs (1920),

the best option. The two remanufactured aircraft with modem turbopropengines, aircraft systems, and rebuiltstructures are operating this year inMcCall, 10, and Missoula, MT.

The 1919 Aviation Goals andEvaluation Criteria Still Apply

As we entered the 1990's-theeighth decade of aviation in supportof fire management activities-it isinteresting to note that no matter howmuch technology has advanced, thebasic policy questions in aviation forfire management that were asked in1919 are still asked. Aviation usesfound safe, efficient, and effective in1919 continue; however, uses thatfailed in anyone of these areas havebeen abandoned. For example, the1919 air fire patrol's work wasjudged to be effective (550 firesreported), efficient (compared favorably with alternate methods in dollarand time costs), and safe enough,although several accidents andfatalities took place.

Of the safety, efficiency, andeffectiveness goals, safety is by farthe most frustrating and difficult toachieve. The standards are not onlydifficult to define, but also the performance in meeting those standards.As the use of aviation has increased,safety has become an increasinglyimportant concern. Through the last30 years, tremendous efforts haveresulted in considerable reduction inaccidents, injuries, and fatalities. Thequestions of 1919 that fire managersstill ask about safety are: What is anacceptable safety level? Can weachieve an acceptable safety level ata reasonable cost and, if so, how dowe do it? In some areas of fire avia-

4

De Havilland DH-4 on fire detection patrolnear MI. Hood (about 1921).

tion use, safety performance is high;in others, more effort is needed.Nearly 80 percent of fire support aviation accidents are caused by humanerror. Why do people make mistakesthat cause accidents? Fire managerssearch for the answer, but the searchis often frustrating and the answer

elusive-it is a challenge that wecannot and do not give up on. OnAugust 30, 1991, Dr. RichardJensen, Director of the Aviation Psychology Laboratory of Ohio StateUniversity, began an independentstudy on Forest Service internal flightoperations. Dr, Jensen's findings willset forth alternative methods andtechniques to enhance aviation safetyperformance.

The New Equipment-Does ItHelp?

The new aviation tools such aslarge helicopters and the turbine airtankers used in balance with manyother fire fighting tools improve firefighting effectiveness and efficiency.Their greater power reserve and flexibility also improve safety-butsafety and containing its cost remainour greatest challenge. -


Seven Sharp Sherpas"New" Planes Soaring inPopularity

"New" airplanes added to thesmokejumper fleet in 1991 promise tomove more smokejumpers more efficiently. The planes, known as"Sherpas," were transferred from theU. S. Air Force under the FederalGovernment's excess propertyprogram.

Each twin-engine C-23A Sherpawill carry 10 to 12 smokejumpers andtheir equipment. Fully loaded, the aircraft's cruising range is around 450miles (724 Ian) at about 207 miles perhour (333 km/h). When used as aparacargo platform, it can carry about5,000 pounds (2,268 kg) with 3 hoursof fuel.

"The planes are very well suitedfor the smokejumper and parae argomissions," said Nels Jensen, USDAForest Service national aviation operations officer at Boise Interagency FireCenter (BIFC) and now a Sherpaqualified pilot. "The performance isbetter than anticipated, with a goodpayload. It will save us a significantnumber of dollars in the future. "

"Speed, visibility, and interiorroom" are the advantages of theSherpa said Bureau of Land Management (BLM) BIFC smokejumper KenFranz, a 17-year veteran with almost400 jumps.

"Anything that delivers smokejumpers more quickly will help stopfires before they get big," he said."The Sherpa's interior space makes itpossible to be comfortable even with afull fire load of cargo. The visibility(of the terrain) through the windows

, I This article was previously published in Thei Flame, 8(I) 1 and 4, Boise Interagency Fire: Center, Boise, 10,i

1991 Volume 52, Number 2

enhances the firefight because jumperscan better orient themselves to theconditions below."

Four planes have been deployedinto the field this fire season. TheForest Service has positioned its threeplanes at Redding, CA; Redmond,OR; and Missoula, MT. BLM has stationed its plane at the Alaska FireService (near Fairbanks). The remaining three will be ready by next year:two for BLM and one for the ForestService.

Eighteen C-23A's were producedfor the U.S. Air Force between1982-84. They were used by the 10thMilitary Airlift Squadron stationed atZweibrucken Air Force Base, locatedin what was then known as West Germany. The freighters serviced 22 U.5.Air Force bases in northern Europe.

A Bureau of Land Management smokejumper takes offfrom a C-23A Sherpaduring the joint Forest Service-Bureau of

"The planes have about 4,500hours each," said Ed Blakeslee, Forest Service aviation maintenancespecialist at BIFC. "That's equivalentto getting a mid~1980's car with20,000 miles (32,186 km) on it."

New, the Sherpas cost about $3million each. The estimated price ofconversion to smokejurnper use fromthe freighter configuration is about$110,000 per plane. The conversionsare being handled by Western Aircraft, in Boise, under a contractadministered by the Forest Service.

To prepare for smokejumping duty,windows, cabin insulation, and interior cabin linings were installed. Therewere some slight radio modifications,and installation of smokejumperrelated equipment. The bodies wererepainted to the colors of each agency.

Land Management demonstration May 1,1991, near Boise, IV.

5

The Sherpas have a rear ramp, similar to a C-130. However, thesmokejumpers will exit through theport door, as will the paracargo. (Thedoor is removable and stored inside

II the plane.) The rear ramp is used onlyfor loading cargo, but unlike the

IC-130, does not open in the air.

At the beginning of the season, 17

'Il

l pilots were certified for the aircraft.Each has a minimum of 12 hours onthe Sherpa and logged an average of7,000 hours total flying time. Of thisgroup, 11 will fly for the Forest Serv-

, ice and 6 for the BLM.1 . Compared with the equivalent con-I tract smokejumper aircraft, the

introduction of the Sherpa will bringan estimated savings of $160,000annually per plane.

Technical Facts

For a better idea about thecapabilities of the C-23A Sherpa, hereare some of the basic technical factsabout the aircraft:

• Manufacturer. The C-23ASherpa, manufactured by ShortsBrothers PLC of Belfast, Northern Ireland, is a freighter versionof the Shorts SD3-30 aircraft Itis named after a Himalayan peoplc ' 'renowned for theirdurability, industry, and loyaltywhile working in severe environmental conditions."

• Engines. The engine, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, ispowered by twin-propellers andis capable of developing 1,167horsepower at 1,675 revolutionsper minute.

• Performance. Allowable usableweight-22,400 pounds (10,161kg); elevation-lO,ooo feet(3,048 rn); maximum cruisingspeed-2lS miles per hour(351 kmlh); minimum cruisingspeed-177 miles per hour

6

(285 kmlh); cruising speed forexit of smokejumpers--115 milesper hour (185 kmIh); maximumrare of climb at sea Jevel-J ,] 80feet per minute (360 mlmin);service ceiling (maximum altitudeaircraft can operate at, oneengine out-12,9oo feet (3,932m).

• Take-off distance. ISA-3,420feet (1,092 m); ISA plus 15degrees-4,250 feet (1,295 m).

• Landing distance. 3,650 feet(1,113 m).

• Range. (With maximum fuelreserves for 45-minute hold and50-mile (81 km) diven;ion)-225miles (362 km) with 7,000 pound(3,175 kg) payload; 770 mileswith 5,000 pound (2,268 kg);fuel consumption (averagc)--130gallons per hour (492 Uh).

• External dimensions. Span-74feet, 8 inches (23 m); length-58feet (18 m); rear loading doorheight, 6 feet, 6 inches (2 m),and width, 6 feet, 6 inches(2 m).

• Internal dimensions. Cabinmaximum length, 29 feet, 10inches (9.1 m); maximum width,6 feet, 6 inches (2 m); maximumheight, 6 feet, 6 inches (2 m);volume (all-cargo), 1,260 cubicfeet (29 m'); baggage compartment (nose), 45 cubic feet (1.3rn').

• Weights and loadings. Weightempty (includes crew of two)-15,370 pounds (6,972 kg); fuel(jet)-4,480 pounds (128 kg)(670 gal or 2,536 L); maximumpayload-7,000 pounds (3,175kg).•

John Hecht, public affairs writer,Bureau of Land Management, BoiseInteragency Fire Center, Boise, ID

I

I !I II I, II I

I i

Keeping Track of FEPP:Internal Control

State Foresters using loaned USDAForest Service Federal Excess IPersonal Property (FEPP) for fireprotection must have adequate internal Icontrols to safeguard the equipment. IHere are some actions the StateForester can take to keep better track Iof FEPP: I'

• Separation of Duties. The manyduties connected with FEPP must be !separated in such a way that no oneperson has enough FEPP lresponsibilities to obscure actions Ifrom management oversight. ISegmenting duties protects the If

program.• State Reviews and Audits. The I

State Forester is encouraged to Iconduct State reviews and audits and Ito participate with the USDA ForestService in Forest Service reviews.

• Property Identification. All f

FEPP on loan should be identified as IFederal property with USDA ForestService furnished tags or labels or I'

with a State identification systemapproved by the USDA ForestService.

• Training. Managers and users ofFEPP must be adequately trained.

• Enforcement. When FEPP onloan is lost, damaged, or stolen, theState Forester must find out whetherState employees have been negligentin the carrying out of their duties. Ifnegligence is determined, the Stateemployee should be subject to theState's administrative regulations. -

Francis R. Russ, propertymanagement specialist, USDA ForestService, Fire and AviationManagement, Washington, DC, andchairman of the FEPP Study Group


Mark III Aerial Ignition: A Field PerspectiveJohn Fort

Zone fire management officer and forester, u.s. Fish and WildlifeService, St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, St. Marks, FL

A l-mile section of Mark III spots set to back into pine flatwoods on St. Marks National WildlifeRefuge and head through marsh grass.

In the last 10 years the use ofaerial ignition in prescribed burninghas grown dramatically nationwide.It is now used extensively in thelower Coastal Plain of the Southeastern United States. New landmanagers, however, have had littleexposure to the use of aerial ignition,and others are in need of moredetailed information to better planand make budget decisions.

Fire History on the Lower CoastalPlain

The lower Coastal Plain of theSoutheastern United States stretchesroughly from Texas to Florida alongthe Gulf of Mexico and up the Atlantic Coast to Virginia. Historically,this predominantly fire ecosystemburned in response to lightningstrikes and Native American fire sets.Uplands, composed of species ofsouthern yellow pine, burned frequently (2- to IO-year intervals),while the wetter sites (swamps andstream areas) of bottomland hardwood trees and midstory brushnormally burned in response to prolonged drought (50- to lOO-yearintervals).

In this century, prescribed fire hasbeen extensively introduced in thearea. The primary method of ignitionhas been by hand, and types of fireincluded backing, head (both spotand strip), and flanking. The onset ofaerial ignition has added a newdimension to prescribed fire andgiven the land manager another tool.

Firsthand Experience

My field positions over the last10 years have allowed me to oversee


If agency goals are to be met, thenaerial ignition may be viewed as acost of doing business.

3,500 acres (1,416 hal of helitorchburning and 90,000 acres (36,424 halof "ping-pong" (Premo Mark IIIaerial ignition device) burning onFederal land, all of it prescribed firing in the Coastal Plain. Ping-pongignition has become the method ofchoice for most applications in thelower Coastal Plain. Helitorch isused to some extent, most often onsite preparation bums and understorybums on wetter sites.

Thc Mark III device, mountedinside the helicopter, is a 61-pound(26.8 kg) aluminum and stainlesssteel frame with motor, pumps,chutes, and liquid tanks used to

inject glycol into a ping-pong ballcontaining potassium pennanganate.After the ball is injected with glycol,the machine kicks the ball out of thehelicopter. Thirty to forty-five seconds later the ball ignites in anexothermic reaction.

Effective Use of Aerial Ignition

How can aerial ignition workeffectively in fuelsmanagement?Answering that question requires taking a step back and asking somespecific questions:• When would aerial ignition be

more desirable than hand ignition?• What must be considered in plan

ning for the ignition? .• How much does it cost?

The following observations, whichrespond to these questions, are basedon my field experience and a general

7

understanding of issues affecting prescribed burning. They are not theresult of a controlled scientific study.

To Hand Burn or Ignite by Air.An oversimplification of when to useaerial ignition is almost whenever(and wherever) one would handbum.The manager is simply substitutingone method of ignition for another.Tlte goals of the land manager can bemet by either hand or aerial ignition.Hand ignition is an accepted andexpedient method of ignition. Aerialignition requires more preparation,but the end results are often superiorbecause the quantity of work can bedramatically increased and the qualityof work can be better ensured. Herearc four examples of superior results:• Better coverage of an area• Tighter control of the ignition

process• More effective smoke management• Burning goals achieved in a higher

quality mannerConstraints on Burning. Land

managers have a set of prescribedbum goals to achieve-acres burned,tons of fuel reduced, certain understory species targeted-and a finiteamount of resources---dollars, time,favorable weather-to accomplishthese goals. Recent political andsocial changes have combined tolimit these resources, constrainingwhen bums may occur. Dollars arefewer to fund the same (or greater)goals. Personnel ceilings have limitedthe number of people on the groundto do the burning. State smokemanagement and air quality requirements limit the days when burningis allowed-further constraining the"weather window"-throughrestrictive and necessary smokemanagement criteria.

8

Advantages of Aerial burning.Aerial ignition can allow goals to bemet within additional constraints.Aerial ignition allows the burnout ofspecified areas in a much shortertimeframe (hours instead of days)than handbuming. Fewer people cancover more acres if the method ofignition is aerial. Short-lived"weather windows" can be used tofull advantage. Smoke managementcriteria can be met by compressing aset volume of smoke into a large column and allowing for rapid dispersal.Smoke concerns become more compelling as the duration of the bumincreases. Aerial ignition minimizesthe duration of the bum.

Although useful, aerial ignition isnot a panacea for all bums. Generally, if an area is going to be aconcern with hand ignition, it wiIJ bea concern with aerial ignition. Whenthese areas are encountered, aerialfiring might allow the manager toresolve the situation effectively andmeet assigned goals. For example,aerial ignition may allow the manager to take better advantage ofmarginal weather conditions or bettertreatment of marginal fuels by generating more or less heat. If an areacan be easily handbumed, it can alsobe easily lit by air, allowing thelighting of several easy areas in amuch shorter period of time and thusreducing cost per acre.

Aerial Ignition Planning

How aerial ignition is used willdetermine whether results are satisfactory and whether goals aresuccessfully met. Success can beinsured by thorough planning andproper implementation.

Planning Is Critical, Hours ofplanning should precede the briefperiod of implementation (ignition).This means establishing the basics:The weather and fuel parameters,smoke criteria, and fireline sites.Variables unique t~ aerial ignitionmust be covered. Some of these variables are aviation safety concerns,location of the closest helicopter andfuel source, adequate landing sites,effective communication, source of aPremo Mark 111 machine and pingpong balls, coordination with localaviation authorities, and use oftrained people. With proper planning,ignition by air can be straightforwardand as expedient as hand ignition.The actual firing mimics handignition methods.

The Costs

Two of the most common planningconcerns are whether dollars will beavailable and if satisfactory production can be realized. Table I mayhelp answer these questions. Thetable reports field data collected from84 aerial ignitions at 5 reporting stations for 5 years. The ignitions wereby the Premo Mark 111 device andwere on 91,377 acres (36,980 hal ofFederal lands in the lower CoastalPlain. The bums occurred during themonths of October through Marchand reflect various Federal land management goals, although thedominant one is fuel reduction. Avariety of weather and fuel conditions is represented. The predominantfire behavior model is No. 7 Southern Rough (Anderson 1982) andNational Fire-Danger Rating SystemModel D (Deeming 1975). Varioustypes of helicopter contracts and


Table l-Summary of Mark III ignition costs

Fiscal Number of Flight Flight Number of Cost of Miscellaneous Totalyear ignitions Unit Acres hours cost balls used balls cost cost

1991 8 St. Marks National Wildlife 8,915 25.8 $11,480 23,250 $ 3,138 $ 644 $ 15,262Refuge, FL

1990 17 Wakulla Ranger District, FL 20,663 40.4 13,699 45,300 6,116 1,346 21,1611989 5 Wakulla Ranger District, FL 7,400 19.5 5,710 35,500 4,792 504 11,0061988 9 Wakulla Ranger District, FL 9,880 22.4 4,735 30,250 4,082 1,024 9,8411987 13 Biloxi Rangel District, MS 6,670 11.4 1,833 20,250 2,735 1,934 6,5021987 21 Wakulla Ranger District, FL 22,485 74.9 19,900 133,000 17,955 2,775 40,6301987 3 Conecuh Ranger District, AL 6,326 14.5 2,334 23,600 3,186 1,901 7,4211987 8 Apalachicola Ranger District, 9,038 13.2 2,124 23,000 3,103 1,240 6,467

FLTotal 84 91,377 222.1 $61,815 334,150 $45,107 $11,368 $118,290

hourly flight rates were used, andthree types of helicopters wereflown. Other costs such as planning,overhead, agency salaries, andagency equipment are not included.

The acres column refers to thoseacres actually burned. The flight costis based on the hourly leasing rate ofthe aircraft. The flight hours arethose helicopter hours (from theship's hour meter) needed to ferryignition devices to the burn site,observe the area, and light the bum.The flight cost is based on the hourlyrate of the aircraft. The cost of theping-pong balls (aerial ignitiondevices) is held constant at 13.5cents each. Some items included inmiscellaneous costs are for daily helicopter availability, fuel truck, andcosts required by contract.

A few observations drawn fromthese ignitions follow:• The average total aerial ignition

cost per acre was $1.29.• The average number of ping-pong

balls dropped per acre is 3.6, at acost of 49 cents per acre or 38 percent of the total per acre cost.

• The average number of acres litper flight hour was 411.


Per acre costs for air ignition varywidely and are tied directly to management goals and methods used tocarry out the bum. For example, areduction in the number of ballsdropped or a modification of the firing pattern can lower the cost, or adecision to use aerial firing on smallareas for smoke management reasonscan raise the cost. Costs must beviewed on a program level, andaerial ignition viewed as a tool toaccomplish the entire bum program.The overall saving in time-andtherefore money-may outweigh theadditional cost of ignition. If agencygoals are to be met, then aerial ignition may also be viewed as a cost ofdoing business.

In the Federal sector aerial ignitionis well established and increasing asmore managers understand the procedure and are exposed to the benefits.Most questions and issues connectedto aerial ignition can be resolved if athorough job of planning is donebefore executing the bum. Properlyapplied, aerial ignition can complement hand ignition and open anopportunity for future land manage-

ment objectives to be attained in aquality, cost-effective manner .•

Literature Cited

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determiningfuel models for estimated fire behavior.Gen. Tech. Rep. 1NT-122. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 22 p.

Deeming, John, E.; Burgan, Robert E.;Cohen, Jack D. 1977. The National FireDanger Rating Systern--l978. Gen. Tech.Rep. INT-39. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Intennountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.63 p.

Goals of Prescribed Fire onthe Coastal Plain

• Site preparation for regeneration• Cattle range improvement• Understory fuel reduction• Control of certain midstory plants• Stimulation of understory species

for wildlife• Restoration of ecosystems• Visual enhancement• Maintenance of marshes and

wetlands

9

Workforce Diversity Projects:Creativity in RecruitmentElizabeth Kalish and Brenden Tu

Graduate students in Cooperative Education Program; USDA Forest Service;Rocky Mountain Region; Air, Aviation, and Fire Management; Lakewood, CO

Co~OUniversity

Elizabeth Kalish and Brenden Tu with Chief F. Dale Robertson on their trip to the USDA ForestService Washington Office.

The Rocky Mountain Region, orRegion 2, of the USDA Forest Service has a cooperative educationprogram that has as one of its goalsto increase workforce diversity in firemanagement by investing in theeducation of professional fire managers. We are two of the studentscurrently involved in the programand would like to tell you about theprogram: Its advantages to theagency and to US.

Brenden Tu

I graduated from the University ofCalifornia, Davis (UC Davis) in

. resource science with a forestryemphasis. My first experience withwildland fire was as a member of theDavis handcrew organized by theMendocino National Forest. I workedfor the Davis handcrew for three seasons, 1986-88. While in school, Iwas also involved with the City ofDavis Volunteer Fire Department.After graduating from UC Davis,I decided to further pursue myinterest in fire behavior and firemanagement.

In August 1990, I started my master's degree program at ColoradoState University (CSU), funded bythe Rocky Mountain Region Cooperative Education Program. During thesummer of 1991, I was detailed tothe Redfeather Ranger District of theArapaho and Roosevelt National Forests to collect data for my master'sthesis. I am looking at the economicsof rural fire protection-particularlyFederal grants to volunteer firedepartments. The evaluation of therural fire protection programs couldaid in the distribution of Federalfunds to States and volunteer firedepartments.

Elizabeth Kalish

I started working in fire management in 1986 while taking time offfrom college to assess my careergoals. After spending 2'12 years at theUniversity of Arizona studying history and working with the athleticdepartment, both as an athlete and atrainer, I took a job with Mesa VerdeNational Park helitack crew. I spenttwo extended seasons at the parkworking in helitack and fire dispatch.

At the beginning of 1988, Ireturned to school, now at CSU, inthe natural resources managementprogram. I spent the followingsummer working on a resource management crew at Rocky MountainNational Park. During the fall of1988, I decided to pursue fire management as a career and accepted aposition as a cooperative educationforester in the Rocky MountainRegion Cooperative Education Program. I spent the first two summersworking in the prescribed fire program on the Pike National Forest. Icompleted my bachelor's degree inDecember of 1990.

In January 1991, I started work onmy master's degree at CSU in forestfire sciences with my funding alsocoming from the cooperative education program. Through a joint effortbetween the USDI National ParkService and the USDA Forest Service, I was able to work at theDinosaur National Monument, collecting data for my master's thesis. Iam developing a standardized livefuel moisture sampling method forsagebrush, a method for use in prescribed fire planning. The method isdesigned to be cost-effective andeasy for managers to use in the field.

What the Program Has Meantto Us

The opportunities this program hasoffered us have been outstanding. Inthe summer of 1990, we collecteddata for a prescribed natural fire planon the South Platte Ranger District ofthe Pike National Forest. This is oneof the first plans of this kind in theRocky Mountain Region. During theschoolyear, we worked with theregion's National Fire Management

10 Fire Management Notes

Analysis System coordinator in theSupervisor's Office on the Arapahoand Roosevelt National Forests. Wehave participated in training in manyareas-fire behavior, prescribed firemanagement, and fire suppression.

In May of 1991, we visited boththe Intermountain Forest Fire Laboratory (IFFL) in Missoula, MT, and

training professional fire managerswith natural resource backgrounds.Although we would both be studyingfire management and working in thisfield, this program has allowed us topursue broader goals. This programhas expanded our knowledge of thefull range of fire managementactivities-research, suppression, andprescribed fire. The program has

given each of us the opportunity topursue an advanced degree at a university with one of the leading fireprograms in the United States. Whenwe graduate, the Forest Service willhave two employees from diversebackgrounds with an understandingnot only of fire management but ofthe agency.•

"The opportunities this programhas offered us have beenoutstanding."-Elizabeth Kalishand Brenden Tu

A TaskForce Recommendation-Funding for SpecialProjects

D

the Washington Office. Al Roberts,regional coordinator of the cooperative education program, took us toMissoula for the IFFL open house.There we were able to observe ongoing research and talk to the scientistsahout their work. During our 2-dayvisit to Washington, we attended thedaily meeting of Chief and Staffwhere we met Chief F. DaleRobertson. At the State and PrivateForestry staff meeting, we met Deputy Chief Al West. We had a chanceto discuss with Forest Service Fireand Aviation Management DirectorL.A. (Mic) Amicarella and NationalPark Service Fire Management Director Elmer Hurd the agencies'different fire policies and how Federal agencies work together tomanage fire despite their differentland management missions. The tripsto IFFL and the Washington Officegave us the opportunity to discussOUf thesis topics with scientists andfire management specialists.

The main goal of the program is todiversify the fire management workforce by actively recruiting and


"Designate annual funding of$580,000 per year for special projects" to recruit and retain minoritiesand women in the workforce, Fire andAviation Management's workforcediversity taskforce recommended in itsreport, "A Model for WorkforceDiversity." published in April 1990.The taskforce was established in 1987to help Fire and Aviation Managementwork toward the workforce diversitygoal articulated in the Forest Servicevision statement, "Caring for theLand and Serving People": "We willhave a workforce that better reflectsthe national diversity." Chief F. DaleRobertson and others have reaffirmedthis message many times since. Thetaskforce annual funding recommendation rests firmly on the oldchallenge-"Put your money whereyour mouth is!" -and the realisticinsight that to build a diverse workforce in fire management requires aninvestment in students and theireducation.

A Winning Project Proposal Fromthe Rocky Mountain Region

Cooperative Education. Inresponse to this opportunity to build adiverse workforce, each region sub-

mitted project proposals, "bidding"for shares of the $580,000. TheRocky Mountain Region's project-toadd four cooperative education positions in the Air, Aviation, and FireManagement unit-e-was one of theprojects selected for funding.

Program Goals. The goals of theRocky Mountain Region CooperativeEducation program are to diversify theFire and Aviation Management workforce by proactively recruiting andtraining professional fire managerswith a natural resource background.Students are introduced to many Forest Service programs from the districtto the national level. Although theiruniversity tuition is not paid, studentshave worked summer seasons at thedistrict level on the Pike and San Isabel and the Arapaho and RooseveltNational Forests in recreation, timber,and fire management. Throughout thescnoolyear. part-time employment hasbeen available at the forest supervisor's office, working with theNational Fire Management AnalysisSystem (NFMAS). The cooperativeeducation program positions give Fireand Aviation Management the opportunity to recruit university studentsdirectly into fire management.

11

12

People Behind Ihe Scenes

Many people have devoted time andenergy to develop this quality programfor the cooperative education students.Al Roberts, regional team leader forthe Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management Program. spearheaded the effortto get the cooperative education program underway and coordinated theactivities. Rocky Mountain RegionAir , Aviation, and Fire Managementdirector. Ray Evans, has shownexceptional commitment to theadvancement of this program. TheWashington Office of State and Private Forestry Fire and AviationManagement funded the program andoffered strong support. The tie bindingthe Rocky Mountain Region's cooperative education program together withCSU starts with the enthusiasm andcooperation of Dr. Phil Omi, professor of forest fire science.

Looking 10 Ihe Future

Universities, particularly those withforestry schools. are excellent SOUrcesof future professional fire managers.Recruitment and training of these students in this program gives studentsan opportunity to learn about theimportance and the nature of programsin the agency, especially fire management. Students gain work experienceand can move as productive, informedemployees into the agency workforcewhen they graduate.

The Students

The program currently employs fourstudents from Colorado State University (CSU). Besides Breodeo Tu andElizabeth Kalish, Aaron Ortega, anundergraduate student in forestry withan emphasis in fire management, andMichelle Lyon, master's degree student in forest fire science. are also inthe program. Karen Ogle. a past cooperative education student, is currently

working on the Malheur NationalForest,

Aaron Ortega. Originally fromLafayette, CO, Aaroo Ortega-awater-skiing, wind-surfing, and rockclimbing buff-became interested inforestry while teaching biology tosixth-grade students at an outdoor laboratory. He was particularly fascinatedwith the effects of fire on the naturalprocesses in different ecosystems. Thecooperative education programenabled him to pursue this interest aswell as others.

The cooperative education programdid something else important forAaron-a solid introduction to manydifferent types of field operations conducted by the Forest Service. Duringthe past 2 years, he trained in fire prevention and suppression, timberinventory, trail building and maintenance, and recreation, and has twomore working summers before cernpleting his degree at esu. He says,"I feel very fortunate to participate inthe program and believe it has givenme the support to complete my goalssuccessfully. "

Michelle Lyon. Michelle Lyondevoted little time to the outdoorswhile growing up in Baltimore. MD.But when she graduated from the University of New Hampshire in May of1991 with a degree in forest science,she had not only become someonewho enjoys hiking, biking, sailing,and skiing, but someone closelyacquainted with the challenges of landmanagement. Interested at first in continuing her study of forest decline.which she had begun as an undergraduate, she decided to pursue firemanagement after witnessing a smallprescribed bum in New Hampshire.As a graduate student at esu,Michelle is focusing on how fire hasbeen manipulated and suppressed inthe past to create the forests, fireregimes, and fire behavior we havetoday.

Karen Ogle. Karen fell in lovewith the outdoors as a child during the2 years she spent living in anundeveloped subdivision ofAnchorage, AK, where there waswoods and wildlife. Later, when herfamily moved to Denver, she hiked onmany weekends and for one summerworked at Rocky Mountain NationalPark in the Yoath Conservation Corps(YCC). During thai summer with theYCe, she decided to pursue a careerin natural resource management whenshe was older.

In 1981, she enrolled in the forestryprogram at CSU and ;0 1985 graduated with a fire management degree.During the summer of 1985, sheworked as a firefighter on the EagleRanger District of the White RiverNational Forest, and at the end of thesummer met with Al Roberts, teamleader for the Prescribed Fire andFuels Management Program in' theRocky Mountain Region, to discusspennanent employment. Out of thisdiscussion the cooperative educationprogram was born. In 1988, shereceived her Master of Science degreein fire ecology from CSU.

Her first job with the Forest Servicewas on the San Juan National Forestin southwestern Colorado. There sheworked on the forest's National FireManagement Analysis System(NFMAS} runs for several monthsbefore she transferred to the MalheurNational Forest in eastern Oregon asthe forest fire planner and fuels specialist. In 19&9. Karen was detailed tothe Redmond Interagency HotshotCrew and experienced many kinds offirefighting situations. She returnedfor 2 years to the Malheur NationalForest supervisor's office to updateNFMAS runs and is currently a fuelsforester in charge of the burning ProMgram on the Prairie City RangerDistrict on the Malheur. She willmanage the suppression program onthe district in the summer of 1992. •


I,

,

CDF's Helicopter Program: What's HappeningArthur H. Trask

Helicopter program manager, California Department of Forestry andFire Protection, Sacramento, CA

.--"---""~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~--,

New Helicopter MaintenanceFacility

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)recently opened a new helicoptermaintenance facility at Yolo CountyAirport. Unlike the previous maintenance vendor located at Stockton,CA, maintenance at the Yolo Countyfacility is dedicated strictly to CDFhelicopters. This facility with its 10person, fulltime workforce shouldimprove accountability-trackingparts, completing repairs, and controlling quality-and, it is hoped,result in overall cost savings.

These Hueys are acquired by the Forest Service and then loaned toagencies such as CDF for use inwildland fire suppression. The refurbishment and conversion process isboth extensive and-at a cost of$505,000 per helicopter-expensive.Helicopters playa critical role in theCDF fire suppression program, andgiven the cost for the commercialalternative (a Bell 212 helicopterwith a purchase price of $4 million

each), these refurbished, convertedFEPP helicopters with an expectedoperational life of 20 years are trulya bargain.

The Copter 202, the second CDF"H" model to go into service.became a part of the Bieber HelitackUnit on April 2, 1991. The first"H" model, Copter 205, went intoservice before the 1990 fire seasonand has subsequently flown approximately 675 hours.

Help From FEPP

Shop Equipment and Replacement Parts. The CDF equipped theshop with tools and spare replacement parts. Most of the shop toolingcame through the USDA Forest Service Federal Excess Personal Property(FEPP) Program. Use of FEPP hasbeen extremely cost effective for theState, saving, for instance, approximately $250,000 in shop toolsalone. The CDF ultimately intends toestablish one centralized maintenancefacility for both airplanes and helicopters at Mather Air Force Base.The present helicopter maintenancecontract contains the flexibility torelocate to Mather whenever spacebecomes available.

The "Super Huey.? The accompanying "before" and "after"photograph shows the EH-IH helicopter as it looked when obtainedfrom the U.S. Army and the CDF'srecently completed conversion, theCopter 202, a highly modified "H"model nicknamed "Super Huey."


The EH-1H helicopter as obtained from rhe U.S. Army and Copter 202 CDF conversion.

The Coprer 205, CDF'sfirsr conversion a/the UH-IH.

13

Based on our operationalexperience with Copter 205, we havemade minor changes to the VHFradio equipment and design of theinstrument panel in the Copter 202.To ensure a completely standardizedfleet---essential to flight safety-allfuture "H" models will be a cloneof Copter 202. To do this, the following equipment must be installedor changed:• High-skid gear (increases ground

clearance) and rotor brake (reducesrotor coastdown time significantly)

• 205Al tailboom with 212 tail-rotorcomponents (commercial standard)

• New particle separator (engine airfilter)

• Engine upgrade (greater horsepower output): -l3BA to the -703used in the Cobra (AH-15)

• Teledyne Avionics Power Analyzerand Recorder

• Fuel management system coupledto the navigational radio (Loran C)

• Main rotor transmission upgrade:eight planetary gears with heavyduty input quill

• Becker Avionics self-containedVHF radio stack

• Blind altitude encoder coupled toLoran C

• Wulfsberg Flexcom FM systemwith control head (ClOOO)

• Wulfsberg 9600 VHF FM withcontrol head (C962A)

• Wire strike kit (wirecutter)• Cargo hook load cell (extemalload

weighing system)• Computer system for fire mapping• Video and infrared system• Pilot and copilot mirrors for under

aircraft viewing• Foam concentrate tanks built into

passenger steps (20 gal or 76 L)

14

Given the alternative---a Bell 212with a purchase price of $4 millioneach-these refurbished, convertedFEPP helicopters with an expectedoperational life of 20 years aretruly a bargain.

• Aircraft stripping and repainting,inside and out

• Complete replacement of flexiblefuel and oil lines

• Solid-state inverters• Radar altimeter with expanded

helicopter scale• New audio control panels with rear

cabin public address system• Public address system with siren

activation button on pilots' collective pitch controlThe recent acquisition of .. H"

models was very timely since CDP'sexisting fleet of 10 UH-IF's arefaced with a critical shortage of sparereplacement parts.

While the "F" models have performed yeoman service for CDFduring the past 10 years (18,000hours), the helitack bases are anxiousto receive their new "H" modelsbecause of their increased performance and reliability.

Value of Helitack Program

Perhaps the best indicator of thevalue of CDF's helitack program canbe found in the annual review ofactivity and accomplishment. Forexample, during the 1989 fire season, which was a relatively quiet fireyear for CDF, the eight UH-IFhelitack units performed as follows:.2,817.7 total flight hours

• 885 flight hours spent droppingfoam

• Over 3 million gallons (I I millionL) of foam or water (dropped onaverage of 3,450 gal or 13,000 Lper flight hour)

• 2,482 firefighters transported• 125,857 pounds (57 kg) of equip

ment transported• 100 flight hours assisting in earth

quake relief

Private Sector Concern

In response to concerns from theprivate sector, CDF conducted anextensive cost-analysis study of theagency-operated program. Thisrecently completed study clearlyshows the benefits of the program:• Standardized flight operations• Increased capabilities and

perfonnance• Vastly improved safety record• Reduced cost• Year-round availability• Helicopter modified specifically for

fire suppression mission• Experienced forestry pilots

CDF attributes much of the helicopter program's success to thesebenefits and results. -


Ii

Fire Behavior Training-a Look atSome Upcoming ChangesDonald W. Carlton

Fire planning specialist. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,Portland, OR

The Fire Behavior Committee andIts Goals

In April 1990, a group of firebehavior subject matter experts wasformed to work with the NationalWildfire Coordinating Group' s(NWCG) Training Working Team(TWT) on fire behavior issuesespecially fire behavior training. Thegroup, or Fire Behavior Committee(committee), as it is known, togetherwith TWT. focuses its work on thedevelopment and maintenance ofnational, regional, and local interagency fire behavior trainingcurriculum and courses. The NWCGTWT and the Prescribed Fire andFire Effects Working Team(PFFEWT) have been working onfire behavior training revisions since1988. The committee's highest priority task is the revision of the firebehavior curriculum to satisfy usersin wildfire suppression and prescribed fire management. Thecommittee is also available to agencies needing expert advice on otherproblems related to fire behavior.

The committee is made up of thefollowing members: Don Carlton,Chair, USDA Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Region, Portland, OR;Bill Clark, USDl National Park Service, Washington Office at Boise. ID;Greg Zschaechner, USDl Bureau ofLand Management, Colorado StateOffice, Denver, CO; Paul Werth,National Weather Service, BoiseWeather Service Office. Boise, ID;Mike Wallace, USDl Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Washington Office atBoise, ID; Pat Andrews, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory,Missoula, MT; and Dan Francis, Cal-

1991 Volume .52, Number 2

The Fire Behavior Committee'shighest priority task is the revisionof the fire behavior curriculum tosatisfy users in wildfire suppressionand prescribed fire management.

ifornia Department of Forestry andFire Protection (CDF) and TWT liaison, CDF Training Academy, lone,CA.

The Fire Behavior CurriculumHow It Developed

The current core structure of firebehavior training is a result of several courses developed independentlyover the past 10 to 15 years. each ata different time. These coursesS-190 Introduction to Fire Behavior.S-390 Fire Behavior, and S-590 FireBehavior Analyst-were developedprimarily in response to advances infire behavior prediction technology ormethodology. In 1976, for example,the fire behavior prediction nomograms were introduced by Frank A.Albini (I976) and used in the firstFire Behavior Officer-now S-590Fire Behavior Analyst-s-course.These nomograms. together with areaand perimeter models, provided thebasis for the Fire Behavior PredictionSystem (FBPS) (Rothermel 1983).

In 1979, with the introduction ofthe fire behavior program on theTI-59 calculator, fire behaviorcalculations could be made electronically (Burgan 1979). By themid-1980's, further equipment andprogramming developments resultedin FBPS outputs being processedusing a handheld "computer" called

the HP-71 B (Susott and Burgan1986) and using the BEHAVE System on a mainframe or personalcomputer (Andrews 1986, Andrewsand Chase 1989). As each of thesefire behavior processors came online,additional fire behavior predictionmodels were developed to predictfuel moisture (Rothermel 1983 andRothermel et aJ. 1986), spotting distance (Albini 1979, 1981, 1983), firecontainment (Albini and Chase1980). scorch height (Van Wagner1973), and tree mortality (Ryan andReinhardt 1988). The most recentaddition is a program in theBEHAVE System called RxWINDOW (Andrews and Bradshaw1990). A fire behavior specialist cancalculate the environmental conditions (fuel moisture, windspeed, andwind direction in various combinations) for an acceptable range of firebehavior (intensity, rate of spread,and flame length). The program isparticularly useful in prescribedburning.

This technology has been transferred to the field through nationaltraining courses, which taughtinstructors how to transfer this technology to others (TI-59, BEHAVE,and HP-7IB). Formal fire behaviorprediction courses such as S-390 andS-590 also included this technology.

Expanded Curriculum

To support the TWT's efforts andgive direction nationally to firebehavior training efforts, the committee has structured a four-course corecurriculum;

• 5-190 Introduction to WildlandFire Behavior

15

• S~290 Intermediate Wildland FireBehavior

• S~390 Introduction to WildlandFire Behavior Calculations

• S-490 Advanced Wildland FireBehavior CalculationsS-290 and S-490 are new to the

national curriculum, while S~390 hasbeen substantially changed. To meetspecific needs, application moduleswill be developed. One or more corecourses will be required to be completed before taking an applicationmodule. For example, S-490 is aprerequisite for S-590 Fire BehaviorAnalyst, a I-week applicationmodule.

The committee has worked withthe NWCG Incident Command System Working Team and the TWT tointegrate into the fire behaviorcourses the information and activitiesnecessary to develop the skills to perform the tasks required in firesuppression positions. Currently, thatintegration is taking place in thecourse revision.

Broad Outline of Course Changesand Why Changes Were Made

S-190 will still be a requiredcourse for the basic firefighter. Thecourse will be updated but with littlechange in course objectives. Muchdiscussion has focused on which suppression and prescribed fire positionsrequire the knowledge and skill tocalculate fire behavior variables suchas spread rate and flame length ascurrently taught in the 1981 versionof S-390. For fire suppression, thecommittee recommended that the single resource boss does not need to dofire behavior calculations; on theother hand, the committee concluded

16

that strike team and task forceleaders and Incident CommandersType III do need the knowledge andskill to do calculations. This decisionrequired splitting the S-390 course,1981 version, into two courses, separating the qualitative and quantitativeparts into S~290 and S~390, respectively. The courses will be updatedto include the latest technology andinformation.

The need for additional firebehavior predictive capability to support suppression activities on largefires as well as the planning andexecution of both managementignited and prescribed-natural fireprovided the impetus for the S-490course.

As the curriculum was expanded,the courses were carefully revised.Care was taken to introduce anddevelop concepts, the models basedon these concepts, and the processors(tables and computers) needed tomake the calculations so that a logical and orderly curriculum wasdeveloped. For instance, in S-190and S-290, fire behavior conceptsare introduced and carefullyexplained. In S-390, the conceptsreviewed and fire behavior predictionmodels are introduced. In S-490, thestudent learns to use the processorsand make the most complex firebehavior calculations, The coursesbuild on each other, making use ofwhat has been introduced, spiralingto the learning of more advancedconcepts taught in upper-levelcourses.

The Course Content and Development Schedule

8-190 Introduction to FireBehavior. The committee will

review 5-190 to recommend revisions, if needed, to the course infiscal year 1992. The film, "FireWeather," an integral part of S-190,is being revised. Testing will occurin fiscal year 1993.

8-290 Intermediate WildlandFire Behavior and 8-390 Introduction to Wildland Fire BehaviorCalculations. The major changesfrom the existing S-390, 1981 version, to the new courses are:• Developed S-290 as an instructor

taught course with a strong prework component. The course isproposed as a requirement for thesingle resource boss. Classroomtime is estimated at 24 hours.

• In S-290, included a unit wherethe student leams how to analyzethe influences of combined topographic, weather, and fuel factorson fire behavior. A job aid (stepby-step explanation of task) willbe developed which the studentcan easily carry to the fireline.

• In S-290, developed an in-depthunit on the concepts of firebehavior in the third dimension(extreme or severe fire behavior).This unit includes many of theconcepts taught in the existingS-490 lesson on this subject.

• Developed S-390 as an instructortaught course with a strong prework component. Classroom timeis estimated at 16 hours, and it isproposed that this course berequired for strike team and taskforce leaders as well as the Incident Commander Type Ill.

• In S-390, replaced the calculationof fire behavior values using tableswith fire behavior nomograms.

• Wrote detailed lesson plans andproduced effective audio-visual


'I

•

5-390 Introduction to WildlandFire Behavior Calculations

5-290 Intermediate WildlandFire Behavior

material for all fire behaviorcourses .

• Updated and standardized terminology throughout the firebehavior curriculum.The course outlines are as follows:

The committee structured adevelopment plan for S-290 andS-390, allowing for the completionof draft courses for both S-290 andS-390 in fiscal year 1991, four testcourses in fiscal year 1992, andcourse distribution in fiscal year1993. The first test course for

Unit 3 Optional Regional LessonsA. Calculation Proficiency

AssessmentB. Prework Review

HP-7IBC. Prework Review

Slope DeterminationD. Prework Review

Mid-flame WindE. Prework Review

NomogramsF. Prework Review

Fine Fuel MoistureDetermination

G. Prework Review-BEHAVE

H. Bum FuelbedI. MOISTURE Module1. CONTAIN Module

Other Training Materials andCourses, Technology Transfer, andEquipment

Review of Materials in the Publications Management System. Thecommittee is reviewing the materialscurrently in the Publications Management System (PMS) at BoiseInteragency Fire Center that supportfire behavior and fuels managementtraining. The committee is providingthe leadership to research the publications needed for training oroperational purposes. The Mack LakeFire (Simard 1983) and relativehumidity tables are now available.

C. Wildland Fire Behavioron Slopes

D. Large Wildland FirePrediction and Behavior

E. CalibrationF. Fire WhirlsG. Wildland Fire Behavior

in the Third Dimension

Wildland Fire GrowthProjections

A. Basic Wildland FireGrowth from a PointSource

B. Spotting and Ignition

IntroductionWildland Fire BehaviorInputs

A. Use of ModelsB. Fuel MoistureC. FuelsD. Atmospheric StabilityE. WindF. Securing, Adapting,

and Verification ofWeather Forecasts

5-490 Advanced Wildland FireBehavior Calculations

Unit 0Unit I

S-290 and S-390 was held in Boise.!D, January 6-10, 1992. This coursealso served to train instructors for theother three test courses. The othertest courses were held in CaliforniaJanuary 27-31, the Southeast March2...{j, and the Southwest March 9-13.Regional agency representativesattending courses were invited to critique them. Final revision, whichwill include the evaluation oftrainees, instructors, and agencies,will occur following the test courseswith course revision completed byOctober 1, 1992.

8-490 Advanced Wildland FireBehavior Calculations. S-490, withits adjustments to regional conditionshas been tested and will be availablein mid-1992. Test course development, geared to the regions, is onschedule. The course outline is asfollows:

Unit 2

IntroductionFire Behavior InputsFire Behavior CalculationsFire Behavior Applications

IntroductionThe Fire EnvironmentBasic Weather ProcessesTemperature/HumidityRelationshipsAtmospheric Stability andCloudsGeneral and Local WindsTopographic Influences onFire BehaviorFuelsFuel MoistureKeeping Current with theWeatherWildland Fire Behavior inthe Third DimensionCombining Influences AffectBasic Fire BehaviorRegional Lessons (Optional)

Unit 0Unit IUnit 2Unit 3

Unit 10

Unit 7Unit 8Unit 9

Unit 5Unit 6

Unit II

Unit 12

Unit 0Unit IUnit 2Unit 3

Unit 4


A

Commonly used items in firebehavior training such as the firebehavior worksheets in standardpacks by worksheet type, firebehavior nomograms, BEHAVE program computer disks, and a firebehavior field reference to supportS--49O will be stocked by PMS in thefuture. Users should consult theNWCG National Fire EquipmentSystem Catalog, Part 2: Publicationsfor instructions on how to order andavailability.

Newsletter. The committee continues to explore ways to improvecommunication within the firebehavior community. An informational fire management newsletter.under the leadership of RobertMutch, Forest Service technologytransfer specialist at IntermountainFire Sciences Laboratory Missoula,MT, will be published periodically.The newsletter, titled "Interactions,"will share new infonnation andupdate fire behavior and fire management developments.

Prescribed Fire Training Support. The committee is workingclosely with the NWCG PrescribedFire and Fire Effects Working Teamto formulate draft national prescribedfire qualifications and training standards. Fire behavior knowledge andskills will be identified for prescribedfire positions allowing for the integration of these in the core firebehavior courses. In addition, someknowledge and skills will be taughtthrough the development of prescribed fire courses. One of thesecourses is currently under development and will be taught for the firsttime at the National AdvancedResource Technology Center inNovember 1992. This course will

18

cover the use and application of theFire Behavior Prediction System andother technology in the planning andexecution of management-ignited andprescribed-natural fire. It will includecurrent state-of-the-art methodologiesfor both short- and long-term firebehavior projections.

Alternatives to the HP-71B forField Use. The committee is exploring the use of IBM-compatible laptopand palmtop personal computers torun the programs in the BEHAVEsystem. A literature search is occurring as well as field testing of apalmtop personal computer withprinter and modem that runs only onalkaline batteries. The results will becompiled following the 1991 fireseason.

Information-Contact YourAgency Representative

Through the Fire Behavior Committee's efforts, many benefits havealready been realized-particularly indeveloping fire behavior curriculumand courses more effective in trainingfire managers and officers in carryingout the fire suppression and prescribed fire program. The proper useand application of fire behavior prediction technology is critical to theexecution of both programs. If youneed more information on theactivities of the committee or wish toassist in its efforts, please contactyour agency representative. Theirtelephone numbers are: Bill Clark,NPS-FTS 554-9414 or 208-3349414; Greg Zschaechner, BLM-FTS554-3808 or 303-239-3808; PaulWerth, NWS-FTS 554-9862 or208-334-9862; Mike Wallace,BlA-FTS 554-2575 or 208-389-

2575; Pat Andrews, IntermountainFire Sciences Laboratory-FTS 5844827 or 406-329--4827; Dan Francis,CDF and TWT liaison, CDF Training Academy-916-322-7912; andDon Carlton, Forest Service-FTS423-2931 or 503-326-493f.,.

Literature Cited

Albini, Frank A. 1976. Estimating wildfirebehavior and effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT30. Ogden, U'F: V.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station. 92 p.

Albini, Frank A. 1979. Spot fire distance fromburning trees-a predictive modeL Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-56. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation. 73 p.

Albini, Frank A. 1981. Spot fire distance fromisolated sources-extensions of a predictivemodel. Res. Note INT-309. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 9 p.

Albini, Frank A. 198.3. Potential spotting distance from wind-driven surface fires. Res.Paper INT-309. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation. 27 p.

Albini, Frank A.; Chase, Carolyn H. 1980.Fire containment equations fOT pocket calculators. Res. Note INT~268. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 17 p.

Andrews, Patricia L. 1986. BEHAVE: firebehavior prediction and fuel modelingsystem-BURN subsystem, Part I. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-194. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation. 130 p.

Andrews, Patrica L.; Chase, Carolyn H. 1989.BEHAVE: fire behavior prediction and fuelmodeling system-BURN subsystem, Part2. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-260. Ogden, D'F:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 93 p.


"

I,

"

•

These guys wantyou to stopwasting your taxdollars.

Wildfires in our country are a terri.ble waste. A waste of naturalresources. A waste of natural beauty. A waste of money.

Yet every single year, over one billion in tax dollars goes up in smoke.That's what it costs to protect our nation's resources and fight wildfires.

So, think of these famous faces next time you're in the greatoutdoors. And remember, only you can prevent forest fires.

A Puh/ic Serviceo/This Newspaper & TheAdvertising Council m

Andrews, Patricia L.; Bradshaw, Larry S.1990. RxWINDOW: Defining windows ofacceptable burning conditions based ondesired fire behavior. Gen. Tech. Rep.INT-273. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, lntennountainForest and Range Experiment Station. 54 p.

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

Rothermel, Richard C.; Wilson, Ralph A.;Morris, Glen A.; Sackett, Stephen S. 1986.Modeling moisture content of fine deadwildland fuels: Input to the BEHAVE fireprediction system. Res. Paper INT-359.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station. 61 p.

Ryan, Kevin C.; Reinhardt, Elizabeth. 1988.Predicting post-fire mortality of seven western conifers. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch. 18:1291-97.

Suscott, Ronald A.; Burgan, Robert E. 1986.Fire behavior computations with theHewlett-Packard HP-7IB calculator. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-202. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation. 80 p.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1973. Height of crownscorch in forest fires. Canadian Journal ofForest Research. 3:373-378.

Summer Conference:Forest Fire LookoutAssociation

On August 8-9, 1992, the Forest FireLookout Association holds its summerconference at Weeks State Park,

1 Lancaster, NH. At the conferenceKeith Argow, president of AmericanResources Group, a nonprofitorganization for nonindustrial privatewoodland owners that publishesNational Woodlands Magazine, willpresent New Hampshire Division ofForests and Lands with a certificateplacing Me Prospect Firetower on theNational Historic Lookout Register.The Mt. Prospect tower was built in1912 by John weeks-c-of Weeks Actfame. The register, sponsored by theAmerican Resources Group, currentlylists 43 towers nationwide.

On the evening of August 8, KarlRoenke, forest archaeologist on theWhite Mountain National Forest, willlecture on the history of NewHampshire firetowers. Along withfield trips and a publications exhibit,the conference will display 50 years of.fire prevention and Smokey Bearposters.

For more information, contact J.Chris Haartz, P,O, Box 162, Campton,NH 03223; Iris W, Baird, IIRichardson Street, Lancaster, NH03584; Dave Govatski, Route 115,Jefferson, NH.03583, FrS 661-2626 or603-869-2626;: or Karl Roenke, WhiteMountain National Forest, P.O. Box638, Laconia, NH 03247,FrS 834-3773 or 603-528-8773, •


I.1

II. ", \. ~ ,•"I~ir-.~~~~~;:::-;;·~··!~~=d

~·r -Co~=. C'-'-'.~.-'C~.__",__,)1

This primary trainer for the U.S. Navy, the Navy N3N or "Yellow Peril," was first manufacturedin 1937. Modified for borate bombing, it was the first airtanker on contract with the ForestService. Operated by Jensen FLying Service of Sacramento, CA, the aircraft was stored after theairtanker contract terminated. Unrestored. it is displayed in original colors and condition.

Tanker 21 is a Grumman AF-2S or "Guardian." a torpedo bomber modified for retardantbombing, operated by the Aero Union Corp. from 1950-57 on Forest Service and CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry contracts.

Tanker 63 is the only Fairchild C-123 thatfiew as anairtanker. It was on contract at Santa Barbra, CA,from 1984 through 1988 and operated by TBM, Inc.


Retired Firefighting AircraftGo On Display

Six retired firefighting aircraft arenow on display in Pima Air Museumin Tucson, AZ. In April 1990, PimaAir Museum and the USDA ForestService signed an agreement todisplay historic firefighting aircrafton loan from the Forest Service. ThePima Air Museum, a nonprofit,educational museum started in 1976,is the third largest aviation museumin the United States with 228 aircrafton display.

Through extensive coordinationbetween John Roberts, fire management officer, on the CoronadoNational Forest and Ned Robinson,director of the Pima Air Museum,plans are moving ahead to add moreaircraft such as the Fairchild C-II9and Lockheed P2V and to set aside aseparate firefighting aircraft displayarea at the museum. Photographs offive of the six aircraft now ondisplay in the museum are shown inthis photo story. •

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


The Stearman NS Kaydet. modified for borate bombing, was used from /934 into the 1940'sas a training aircraft for basic training in the U.S. military. The first airtanker fleet, fiveStearmans from Willows, CA, was organized for the Forest Service by Joseph Ely of theMendocino National Forest and Willows Flying Service and used through equipment rentalagreements with Willows.

The Cessna 310 was the first twin-engine leadpiane widely used by the Forest Service to lead anddirect ainankers on retardant drops in 1968-69.

21

A Fire Protection Analysis for the Beaver CreekWatershed: A Technical Fire Management Final Project

Thomas A. Wordell

Union hotshot superintendent, USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest, La Grande Ranger District, La Grande, OR

The Beaver Creek Watershed fireprotection analysis was undertaken toevaluate the current La GrandeRanger District preplanned suppression response strategy in thewate~shed. The analysis also servedto satisfy the final requirement-acase study and written report-ofTechnical Fire Management (TFM),a series of courses offered by Washington Institute, Inc., in conjunctionwith Colorado State University, toindividuals with a background in firemanagement in public agencies whowish to improve their technical proficiency in fire ecology, fire behavior,fuels management, data analysis, andeconomics.

Beaver Creek Watershed

The Beaver Creek Watershed consists of approximately 15,000 acres(6,071 hal, At the time of analysis,Beaver Creek Watershed provided 6Spercent of the municipal water supplyfor the City of La Grande, OR, TheLa Grande Ranger District of theWallowa-Whitman National Forest,which administers the area, isresponsible for maintaining waterquality while managing otherresources in the watershed. Most ofthe area is roadless and inaccessibleby vehicles in elevations rangingfrom 4,500 to 6,500 feet (l,372 to1,981 m). The plant communities inthe watershed range from mixedconifer to sub-alpine fir.

Since the mid-1970's, tree mortality caused by insect infestationsand sustained drought conditions ineastern Oregon has substantiallyincreased the natural fuel loadingswithin the boundaries of the water-

22

shed. When compared withoccurrence in the past 20 years, fireoccurrence has more than doubled inthe watershed during the last S years.

This change in fire occurrence andbuildup of natural fuels pressed firemanagers to evaluate the current preplanned suppression response strategyfor the Beaver Creek Watershed tofind out whether protection was adequate. Current fuel profiles, fireoccurrence, weather, economics, andfire effects were examined. Theseobjectives were accomplished by thefollowing:• Developing a range of preplanned

suppression response alternativesfor the Beaver Creek Watershedusing lAS ELECT (an initial attackcomputer analyzation modeldeveloped by Marc Wiitala,Pacific Northwest Region).

• Modeling the alternatives withfuels, weather, and fire occurrencedata to evaluate their economicaloutcomes and effectiveness. ..

• Determining the risk of exceedingthe maximum tolerable fire eventthat could adversely affect waterquality or other resource valueswithin the watershed for eachalternative.

How Allowable Impacts WereDetermined

Information from the Land andResource Management Plan for theWallowa-Whitman National Forestand specific input from resourcespecialists was used to determineallowable impacts. An interdisciplinary team (JD team), consisting of awildlife biologist, fisheries biologist,silviculturalist, hydrologist, and fuelsor fire specialist, was formed. They

developed maximum impact "thresholds" or limits against which theeffects of the alternatives could becompared, by reviewing forest planguidelines, discussing wildlife concerns (cover, edges, and effects ondiversity), determining suppressioncapabilities, and using a computersediment yield model to estimateallowable fire size (by intensity level)that would not cause detrimentaleffects. Fire effects were assumed tobe acceptable if fires were containedbelow the threshold size and unacceptable if they exceeded thethreshold size.

The Alternatives

Three alternatives were quantifiably compared and evaluated in thisanalysis. They are briefly describedbelow:

Alternative 1 (No Action). Thisalternative called for no change tothe 1990 dispatch response strategyused by the La Grande Fire Zone forthe Beaver Creek Watershed. Itassumed all resources listed in thepreplanned dispatch cards would besent to each fire as specified byresponse level.

Alternative 2. This alternativeused lASELECT to select theresources responding to each fire situation that resulted in the leastoverall cost (suppression, mop-up,and resource loss). Mitigationmeasures were used to reduceenvironmental effects by dozers andaerial retardant application.

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 modified the suppression strategy for allpreplanned response levels exceptextreme level (where sufficientresources appeared to be currentIy in

Fire Management Noles

Figure 1-Graph of predispatch response levels and action classes determined by cumulative frequency distribution of energy release components from 1970-90. Taken from PCFlRDAT.

Estimatedannualfire occurrenceper15,000 acres Predispatch Rate of(6,071 hal Fuelmodel response level Windspeed range occurrence

{ P(High wind} '" 0.13 0.0101IP(EXI"mei009 P(Moderale wind} '" 0,72 0,0559

P(LowWind) '" 0.15 0.0117

{ P(High Wind} '= 0.13 0.0325P(Hlgh} 029 P(Moderale wind) '" 0,72 0,1803

~P(Lowwind) '= 0.15 0.0376

P(Fuel model 10)0.557 { P(High Wind} '= 0.13 0.0236lP(Mod",tei 0 21 P(Moderale wind} '" 0.72 0,1305

P(Lowwind) eo 0.15 0.0272

{ P(High wind} '" 0.13 0.0460P(Low} 041 P(Moderale wind} '" 0.72 0.2549

P(Lowwind) = 0.15 0,05311.55

{ P(High wind> =0,13 O.ODBOP(Exlreme) 0.09 P(Moderale wind) = 0.72 0,0445

P(Lowwind) = 0.15 0.0093

{ P(High Wind) = 0.13 0.0259P(High) 0.29 P(Moderate wind) = 0.72 0,1434

P(Low Wind) = 0.15 0.0299P(Fuel model 8)

0,443 { P(High wind) = 0.13 0.0187P(Moderate) 0.21 p(Moderale wind) = 0.72 0.1038

P(Low Wind) = 0.15 0.0216

{ P(High wind) '" 0,13 0.0366P(Low) 0041 P(Moderale wind) = 0.72 0.2027

P(Low Wind} = 0,15 0.0422

~I'r

place). Trial runs were made, usingvarious suppression resources, inorder to develop a reasonable alternative that balanced risk, expectedburned acres, and expected annualcost-plus-loss.

Methods Used in EvaluatingAlternatives

Information on fire occurrence,fuels, weather, fire behavior estimates, risk assessment, and expectedburned acres and economic costswere assembled and used to evaluatethe alternatives.

Fire Occurrence. Fire history records for the last 20 years (from1970--90) on the La Grande Districtwere examined to determine probablefire occurrence rates for the studyarea. During this period, according tothe records, 0.11 fires occurred eachyear per 1,000 acres (405 hal. Thisis the figure used in this analysis ofalternatives.

Fuels. A fuels inventory using theplanar-transect method (Brown 1974)was conducted in the fall of 1989 toobtain current information on the fuelprofiles in the watershed. Informationfrom 195 data plots taken in 3 random planar transects was gatheredand statistically analyzed usingREFLEX, a computer database manager. The data indicated 92.3 percentof the plots were quite consistentwith the standardized Northern ForestFire Laboratory (NFFL) fuel models8 and 10 (Anderson 1982; Andrews1986). After the fuels inventory wascompleted, information was gatheredfrom the 453 stands in the watershedto obtain a weighted representation ofthe fuel models by area. It was determined that 44.3 percent of the area

Fire managers using IASELECTwith procedures similar to thoseused in the Beaver Creek Watershed analysis could gain valuableinsight useful in improving the preplanning of initial suppressionresponses and mitigating the costsof undesirable fire events.

could be represented by NFFL fuelmodel 8 and 55.7 percent by NFFLfuel model 10.

Weather. Weather data for onlythe months of June I through October 30 were collected from arepresentative remote automated

- --~ ------------

weather station (RAWS). Fifteenyears of weather data (1975-89) wascollected from Fort Collins ComputerCenter and downloaded intoPCFIRDAT, a personal computerprogram developed by the CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry (CDF).PCFIRDAT was used to produce acumulative frequency graph ofenergy release component (ERC) percentiles. On Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest, these percentiles areused to determine action class levels.The fuel moisture data were thengrouped into four ERC ranges, whichcorrelated to the different preplanneddispatch response levels (fig. I).Database manager, REFLEX, was

"


used to obtain average fuel moisturevalues by size class for each range.Associated probabilities were derivedby dividing the number of days ineach ERC range by the total numberof days in the database. These average fuel moisture values weresubsequently used in BEHAVE runsto estimate fire behavior (table I).The probability of occurrence foreach ERC range is as follows: 0--39= 0.41; 40-49 = 0.21; 50--66 =0.29; and 67-100 = 0.09.

Three windspeed ranges wereestablished from historical weatherdata to determine average 20-foot(6.I-m) windspeeds, average midflame windspeeds and associatedprobabilities for each range. Thesevalues were also used as inputs to theBEHAVE runs for estimating firebehavior. (Statistical confidenceintervals were determined for theaverage fuel moisture and windspeedvalues obtained. Because of the largesample size, I was 95 percent certainthat the calculated average valueswere plus or minus 0.2 of the trueaverage values.)

The probabilities and rates ofoccurrence on the branches of thedecision tree shown in figure 2 summarize the environmental conditionsthis project used to derive the esti-

mated annual burned acres and costsplus net value change needed toevaluate the protection alternatives.

Fire Behavior. Estimates of firebehavior for each of the possiblecombinations of windspeed and fuelmoisture for each fuel model shownin figure 1 were derived from multiple modeling runs using the PCversion 3.3 of BEHAVE. Information on area and perimeter growthover time along with fireline intensityand flame length were then enteredinto a suppression model for analysisand the development of alternatives.

Modeling Suppression Outcomes.lASELECT was used to model suppression outcomes against the firebehavior associated with each branchof the decision tree (fig. 2) foreach alternative. IASELECT is acomputer-based analysis tooldesigned to evaluate a wide range ofeconomic considerations in the use offire suppression resources for initialattack decisions (Wiitala 1989). Theprogram permits the user to mix andmatch predicted fire behavior estimates with available suppressionresources in order to arrive at containment times and estimated costs. Italso allows the user to ,. optimize"available resources to arrive at theleast cost-pius-loss combinations for

various containment times or firesizes. For additional information onIASELECT, contact Marc R. Wiitalaof the Pacific Northwest Region.

The first step in modeling suppression outcomes with lASELECT wasto create from the BEHAVE-runinformation fireline-containment timescenarios. These were input to aspreadsheet template in IASELECT.Twenty-four scenarios were createdusing the fire area and perimetergrowth outputs from BEHAVE forthe various fuel moistures and windspeeds previously discussed. Fire sizeand perimeter growth were entered inone-half hour intervals.

The next step in setting uplAS ELECT was determining a mastersuppression resource list using thepreplanned dispatch cards and normalavailable resources able to respond toan ignition' in the watershed.Response times were calculated andentered for each resource listed.These included getaway, driving,flight, and average walk-in times.The master list could then be manipulated to allow only certain resourcesto respond for each of the alternatives developed. All lASELECT runswere made under the assumptionthere was a single ignition, and all

•

j

Table I-Average fuel moistures by size class for preplanned response levels

Fuel moisture levelERG range (NFDRS fuel model G)

and preplanned response level'

Average 1-hour fuel moistureAverage 10-hourfuel moistureAverage 100-hour fuel moistureLive woody fuel moistureProbability of occurrencefor each ERC range'ERe = energy release component; NFDRS - National Fire-Danger Rating System

0-39Low

12.118.515.2

133.90.41

40·49Medium

6.810.810.6

107.70.21

50-66High

5.39.18.0

88.00.29

67-10Extreme

4.17.66.0

66.50.09


from a three-district cost analysiscompleted for the years 1986-90.Data on net resource value loss weredrawn from "composite acre" netvalue change (NYC) used in theWallowa-Whitman National Forestfire planning process. The compositeacre NYC is the total of all the calculated or estimated values perresource. The values used were calculated by the forest fuels specialistfor the 1991 NFMAS runs on theWallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Determination of expectedburned acres and economic costs.The economic consequences of eachfire event for each alternative weremodeled using IASELECT. For eachrun, a graph was generated to showthe final fire size, containment time,and associated costs. A list of initialattack resources required to meet orexceed the amount of fireline neededfor each containment time was alsoproduced.

: 100

II

8040 I 60:I Cumulative Frequency II (percentile) I

20 :II

o

-

- /- /- -:-

- .>- »>~(-

I I ) ,I

, ,4

o

EnergyReleaseComponentIndex

94

74

84

54

64

•j

PredispatchReleaseLevel

. - -~- - - --

~ 44. - ~- - - --

34

24

14

2 3(low)

Action Class

3{high) 4 I 5I Evaluating the Alternatives

Figure 2-Dedsion tree probabilities and rates of occurrence used for alternative analysis.(Based on estimated annual rate of occurrence per 15,000 acres.)

The alternatives were evaluatedbased on the risk of exceeding theacceptable "threshold" acreage sizeas determined by the district resourcespecialists (see section above, "HowTo Find Allowable Impacts"),expected burned acres, and economicconsequences from differences insuppression responses.

Risk of Undesirable Outcomes.For this project the probability (risk)of one or more fires having unacceptable fire effects was determined overtime using Poisson's Distribution.Poisson's Distribution states:

resources listed for each alternativewere available,

Fireline production rates were thenentered into IASELECT for eachsuppression resource based on production tables in the FireJineHandbook NWCG Handbook 3(1989), Airtanker Performance Guide(1979), and input from district suppression specialists for each fuelmodel. All production rates wereentered in chains per hour.

Hourly and fixed suppression costswere then calculated for each of thesuppression resources using a cost

computation template included inIASELECT. This spreadsheet computes travel, personnel, equipment,machinery, and clean-up costs (whenapplicable) for each of the resourcesdepending on dispatch responsetimes, distance to fire, and so on.

The final requirement for sellingup IASELECT was to arrive at acomprehensive estimate of total costplus-net resource loss for each fireevent. IASELECT requires per-acremop-up costs and composite netchange for resource values. Averagemop-up costs per acre were derived P(k)

e)-") (ct)k

k!


'I

"

Table 2---Risk of unacceptable fire events in specified time periods

Expected Annual risk of 10-year risk of 15-year risk ofunacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable.

Altemative annual rate fire event fire event fire event

No.1 0.1122 0.1061 0.674 0.814No.2 0.0426 0.0417 0.347 0.472No.3 0.0426 0.0417 0.347 0.472

Table 3-Annual expected burned acres and cost-pius-loss by alternative

Conclusion-a More AggressiveStrategy

i

,

•

$11,383$ 4,400$ 8,740

Expected annualcost-plus-loss (dollars)

from a more aggressive suppressionstrategy.

Based on 2 p.m. weather observations, fire growth exceeded initialattack capabilities 34.5 percent of thetime under the 1990 dispatch strategy(Alternative I). Many of those fireswere contained with secondary suppression resources, but cost and riskcould both be substantially reducedby a more aggressive response ofinitial attack forces as shown byAlternatives 2 and 3.

The results of Alternative 2 werebased completely on optimized runsfrom lAS ELECT. Many of the runsrequired suppression forces that wereunrealistic. Consequently. Alternative2 did not offer a viable option to thedistrict.

Alternative 3. through the reinforcement of additional resources, cutexpected annual costs by $2,643,reduced the expected annual burnedacres by 6.05 acres (2.4 hal. andmost importantly decreased the riskof exceeding an acceptable fire sizein the watershed by 33.7 percentover a IO-year period from Alternative I.

16.753.50

10.70

Expected annualbumed acreage

No.1NO.2No.3

Alternative

occurrence for each branch on thedecision tree for each alternative.The expected annual results for eachfire event were then added to obtainthe expected annual totals for sizeand cost-plus-loss for each alternativeas shown in Table 3.

Alternative 2 had the leastexpected annual cost-plus-loss andburned acres, but was based onselections made exclusively bylAS ELECT from a list of allresources available for initial attackin the La Grande area. Alternative 3.which increased initial attack forceson the preplanned dispatch cardsfrom prevailing levels, indicatedthat overall cost-plus-loss andburned acres would decrease fromthe current situation shown withAlternative 1.

Within the limitations of thisanalysis---evaluating the 1990 presuppression response strategy for theBeaver Creek Watershed-itappeared the district could benefit

To find the probability of one ormore fire events exceeding the predetermined acceptable limits, theprobability of no unacceptable fires(P(O)) was calculated and then subtracted from I. This was done toascertain the level of risk districtmanagers could expect under eachaltemati ve assuming weather and fuelloadings remained constant overtime.

Risk was determined annually andthen over a 10- to IS-year period,which correlated to the approximatetime that would be required to carryout a remedial fuels managementprogram (see table 2).

Table 2 shows that Alternative Iincurred approximately twice the riskover time of experiencing one ormore fires exceeding the thresholdfire size as Alternative 2 or 3.

Expected Burned Acres andEconomic Cost of Alternatives. Theeconomic consequences and expectedburned acres were determined bymultiplying the modeled fire size orcost-plus-loss by the expected rate of

Where: c = Expected rate of firesper 15,000 acres(6,071 hal (calculatedfrom runs resulting ina final fire sizeexceeding the predetermined thresholdsize for each alternative)

t = Time in yearsk = Number of firese = The base of the natu

ral system oflogarithms having anumerical value ofapproximately2.718 ...


Due to the sensitivity of the watershed, I recommended increasingpreplanned suppression resources assuggested in Alternative 3 until afuels management plan could beimplemented. This recommendationwas presented to the La Grande firemanagement officer and was implemented during the 1991 preplanneddispatch review with the OregonState Department of Forestry.Other changes were also made tostrengthen the suppression responsefor the dispatch blocks adjacent tothe watershed.

Based on this experience, firemanagers using lASELECT with procedures similar to those outlined inthis report could gain valuable insightthat they could use to improve thepreplanning of initial suppressionresponses and help mitigate the costsof undesirable fire events. _

Literature Cited and References

Airtanker performance guide. 1977. Ogden,UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Research Station.

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determiningfuel models for estimating fire behavior.Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-122. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Research Station.20 p.

Andrews, P.L. 1986. BEHAVE: fire behaviorprediction and fuel modeling systemBURN subsystem, part I. Gen. Tech. Rep.INT-194. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainResearch Station, 130 p.

Brown, James K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-16. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainExperiment Station. 24 p.

Fireline Handbook NWCG Handbook 3. 1989.PMS 41Q-.-1, NFES #0065. Boise, 10:National Wildfire Coordinating Group,Washington, DC. 146 p. plus appendixes.

I


Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land andResource Management Plan. 1990. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Region.

Wiitala, M.R. 1989. IASELECT: Initial

Technical FireManagement Training

Technical Fire Management (TFM)is fire training at a high academiclevel. The objective of TFM is toimprove the technical proficiency offire management specialists and toteach the basic concepts in economicsand statistics.

Each of the seven modules is 2weeks long except for the first andlast, which are I week each. The firstis an optional brush-up course in basicmathematics and the use of personalcomputers. During the final module,each TFM'er is given the opportunityto explain a horne-based project to a-panelof experts, the oral presentationbeing a summary of the longer andmore intensive written report that isrequired to graduate from the course.

TFM is geared to fire specialists,particularly those at General Schedulelevels, 7 through I L In particular, itattracts those agency employees whoseck technical proficiency and professional development beyond what isavailable in agency training. The aimis to strengthen the technical and analytical skills of specialists and to givethem an opportunity to solve problemslikely to arise in their work.

How the Training Started and ItsCurrent Goals

The Pacific Northwest Region(Region 6) of the USDA Forest Service saw a need for TFM training inthe late 1970's as a way to improve

Attack Resource Selector-user's manual.[Draft.] Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Aviation and FireManagement. 33 p.

the fire planning and managementskills of its fire-related personnel. Incooperation with the University ofWashington in Seattle, a course ofinstruction was created. After the initial I8-month series of courses,another series was held 2 years later.From 1986 to the present, TFM modules have been conducted every year,with a new series starting when thepreceding series has been completed.

Washington Institute took on theadministration of the training in 1985after the University of Washingtonchose to drop it. A working relationship was forged with Colorado StateUniversity (CSU) so that collegecredit could be earned from the workif the student wished. Under the current arrangement, TFM graduates notonly have the option of obtaining college credit, they may also qualify forthe master's degree program in fire

Dr. Douglas Rideout, Associate Professor ofForest Economics. Colorado State University,teaching in Module 11. Economics.

27

Gabe Jasso at the computer in the TPM classroom at Battelle Conference Center, Seattle, WA.Jasso is Q TFM graduate and now works as hotshot supervisor on Entiat District, WenatcheeNational Forest, Pacific Northwest Region.

II,

management at CSU under the direction of Dr. Philip N. Omi.

It is a continuing goal of Washington Institute to keep TFM up-todate, not only in technological but inpolicy and managerial directions aswell. During the first series of TFMmodules, a handheld calculator wasstate-of-the-art. Today, the personalcomputer with sophisticated softwareis considered a basic training tool.Instructors come from academic institutions, government agencies, andprivate consulting firms and are evaluated regularly for their expertise andmethods of teaching.

Originally, students came from thePacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service only. The participants nowcome from several government agencies, Federal and State, and frommany regions. Graduates of TFM canbe found in nearly all western regionsand a few more distant areas.

The Curriculum

The TFM curriculum has beendeveloped so that each new modulecan build and add to what the studenthas learned from the previous modules. The modules and schedule are asfollows:

Math and Computer Refresher(optional). To begin, the TFM participants may take this I-week class toreview mathematics and computerskills. Basic concepts are presentedand some direction is given on futureuse of these skills in the ensuingmodules.

Module I: Numerical Analysis.Following the refresher class, the first2-week session leads the studentthrough quantitative decisionmakingtechniques that can be applied to anal

.ysis of fire and fuels managementdata. These techniques includeapplications in probability distribution,statistical testing, decision theory, andsampling methods.

Module II: Economics for FireManagers. Approximately 2 monthsafter Module I, participants studybasic economic concepts and theirapplication to fire suppression andfuels planning. Students learn how toconduct financial analyses and howthe National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) and FuelsAppraisal Process (FAP) aredeveloped and applied.

Module 111: Fuels and PrescribedFire Management. Students investigate the components of the FireBehavior Prediction System. includinghow it is constructed and how the outputs are interpreted and applied. Theyalso learn fire hazard, fire risk, andfire danger concepts and the appropriate situations for their use, includingfuel treatment plans.

Module IV: Fire Effects and theEcology of Fire. In this module, students learn to identify the directcauses and effects of fire. Evaluationof a site to determine the historicalrole of fire and the effects of futuremanagement with or without theapplication of fire is also undertaken.Module rv is held in Iate spring andincludes a field trip with a case studyassignment.

Module V: Fire and Land Management. Module V, the last 2-weekmodule, explores legislative, political,sociological, and legal considerationsof fire management. There isemphasis on decisionrnaking throughthe use of the rational planning process as well as investigation of methodsfor monitoring and evaluation. Eachstudent develops an individual outline


for a final project and creates studyplans to accomplish the project in theallocated time.

Module VI: Final Project. Afterchoosing a project, the student carriesit out on his or her own unit over aperiod of several months, writes upthe project, and appears before a panelof peers and instructors to present the 'research and conclusions. To complete j'

the project, the student will use theinformation and skills gained throughthe previous modules.

\

Information

For information about TFM training, contact Reid M. Kenady,Washington Institute Incorporated,P.O. Box 1108, Duvall, WA 98019,telephone (office) 206-788-5161,(FAX) 206-788-0688; or LauriePerrett, USDA Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Region, Aviation.and FireManagement, P.O. Box 3613, Portland, OR 97208 .•

Reid M. Kenady and Laurie Perrett.respectively, president, WashingtonInstitute Incorporated, Duvall, WA,and cooperative/ire specialist, USDAForest Service, Pacific NorthwqtRegion, Aviation and Fire Management, Portland, OR


!II

III

I II II II ', I

I

Health Hazards of Smoke

After the serious smoke inversionconditions on the northern Californiaand southern Oregon fires of 1987 andthe Greater Yellowstone Area fires of1988. the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) hosted aconfcrence-c-v'The Effect of ForestFire Smoke on Fircfighters"-in SanDiego. CA. in 1989. As a result ofthat conference. NWCG asked theUSDA Forest Service's MissoulaTechnology and Development Center(MTDC) to coordinate the nationwideinteragency efforts to identify the hazards of smoke inhalation and thendevelop and test equipment and procedures to mitigate those hazards.

Under the leadership of the notedexercise-physiologist. Dr. BrianSharkey. a technical panel has beenformed. On it are physicians andindustrial hygienists from such diversegroups as Johns Hopkins UniversityMedical Center. the IntermountainForest Fire Laboratory. the NationalPark Service, National Institute ofOccupational Safety and Health. andthe California Department of HealthSciences. Their charter is to reviewthe ongoing research efforts. recommend future research needs. andwhere feasible. provide funding forneeded research through NWGC.

In addition to coordinating thenational effort, NWCG has askedMTDC to keep management and theen-the-ground firefighters aware ofavailable information about smokehealth hazards. As a result, MTDChas been preparing a semiannualexecutive report "Health Hazards ofSmoke Update." The first report wassent to the field in August 1990 andthe second in March 1991. Thesereports are in user-friendly language;they have already discussed the resultsof research, detailed the OccupationalSafety and Health Administrationrequirements for respirator use,explained some of the human physiology involved with smoke andparticulates. and offered ideas formanagers to limit the exposure toinhaling smoke.

For further information of this project or to receive past or future copiesof the free "Health Hazards of SmokeUpdate," contact Dr. Brian Sharkeyor fire program leader Diek Mangan at(406) 329-3900 or (FrS) 585-3900;DG:ROIA.•

Dick Mangan, program leader,USDA Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center, Fire.Aviation, and Safety Program, Missoula, MT

29

Improving Airtanker DeliveryPerformanceCharles W. George and Fred A. Fuchs

USDA Forest Service, team leader, Fire Suppression Technology Unit, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT, and assistant director,Fire and Aviation Management, Washington, DC

Figure I-Interaction of Interagency Airtanker Board approvals and agency needs andspecifications.

OperationsNational resourcecooperation-Boise Interagency Fire Center

Alrtanker NeedUSDA Forest Service \USOI-Qffice of Aircraft Service (OAS)

for Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, andBureau of Indian Affairs

StatesCalifornia (COF)North CarolinaWashington

ContractForest Service, OAS, States

SpecificationsfATB approvalAdditional requirements

30 airtankers12 airtankers (5 Alaska, 7lower 48 stales)21 airtankers (5 contract and16 S2F for contract maintenance and operation)

1

ment agencies for airtanker use. In1977, with a revised charter and theDepartment of the Interior, Office ofAircraft Services (OAS), andNational Association of State Foresters as new members, the ATBtook on an interagency role andbecame known as the InteragencyAirtanker Board (IATB). In thisexpanded role, the IATB evaluatesnew or modified airtankers, promotesmore effective and efficient airtankerdelivery systems, advises agencies,and serves as a central data information source.

Since its beginnings, one of theIATB 's primary functions has beento set baseline or minimum requirements for airtankers, focusing onaircraft and delivery system perform-

{

Forest ServiceOASr COF

The Airtanker Board

One of the first attempts to find away to improve the performance andsafety of airtankers began in the1970's with the Forest Service's formation of the Airtanker Board (ATB)(industry participated as a full member of the ATB). The ATB wasfanned to assess the worthiness ofnew aircraft and tank and gating systems that were being proposed to theForest Service and other fire manage-

types. Little standardization resulted,and performance varied. Some systems were fairly versatile, otherslimited in effectiveness to specificfuel fire situations and sometimesregional conditions.

Since use of airtankers in forestfirefighting became an accepted practice late in the 1950's, fire management agencies have provided littlespecific guidance to operators abouthow airtanker delivery systemsshould perform. Agencies have specified airtanker characteristics such asretardant carrying capacity, grossweight, and wheel-loading and speedcapabilities. These have generallybeen dictated by airport runway, taxiway, ramp, retardant base, or otherlimitations. Other constraints such asthe structure of the aircraft fuselageand wing carry-through (spars) alsohave affected delivery system design.The actual performance of the delivery system has been for the most parta result of the creativity of airtankerowners or operators and their tankdesigners, responding to the agency'sneed for an easy-to-use and reliable system within these constraints.

This is not to say agency fire managers did not evaluate deliverysystem performance. They just didnot have the tools or information toprovide quantitative data on howmuch retardant chemical or water isrequired in given fuel and firesituations-What are the upper andlower limits for effective use of retardant or water? How wide should aretardant line be? What kinds of lineincrements are most desirable? Inaddition, the information needed torelate tank design and release characteristics with actual retardant grounddistribution patterns was not available. In other words, operators, bytrial and error, experience, andassessing what agencies preferred,developed delivery systems to "fillthe bill." Numerous delivery systemsevolved for a variety of aircraft


'f-,

,,'

ance. These minimum requirementsare used to derive a list of "approvedairtankers" that are qualified torespond to member agency contracts.Actual contract specifications prepared by user agencies contain arequirement that airtankers must be"approved by the Board" as well asinclude other specific user requirements. Figure I illustrates theinteraction of the IATB approvalsand agency needs and specifications.

Performance Standards

Initial Evaluation. Initial performance standards were developedaround the performance of the existing fleet of aircraft in use by firemanagement agencies. These standards were written based on aconsensus that new aircraft must be., equal or better" in performancethan airtankers in the existing fleet.To develop these standards and criteria. the IATB drew upon theknowledge gained from recentresearch, development, and evaluation programs.

Research Studies-Basis ofEvaluation. The evaluation of theperformance of the delivery systemsderives from research studies initiatedby the Forest Service in 1969 toquantify the capabilities of differenttank and gating systems. The studiesentailed the dropping of retardant orwater over a sampling grid and determining the ground pattern under avariety of conditions: tank configuration. door sequencing speed, dropheight, retardant type, relativehumidity, temperature, windspeed,and direction (George 1975, Georgeand Blakely 1973). Honeywell Corporation, under contract to the Forest


Seconds

Figure 2--Relationship between ground distribution patterns and characteristics of retardantflow from the tank system.

31

,

Range

Develops thetwo parts(uniform fringe patternand semicross range) ofthe pattern asa functionofaltitude

t

Range

Semicrossrange

7.

6. Removes a uniformfringe pattern

5. Adjusts for altitudelosses (percent recovered)

4. Sums the packets ina downrangecoverage distribution (percent)

II()

3. Distributes the packets in theair

..--:=J

~

./\

:?:\~

/:=J~

The program-1. Quantifies theretardant

volume into packets, whichestablish theflow rate

)

)Tank

~"71 I Trailoff

61 Decreasing ~

height of -o~

51head

~e(pressure) '"as

Volume

41Fullflow

31 Dooropening

21 time-.1 1 establishes

flow

2. Flies each packet toextinction

VAle

Figure 3--Pattern simulation model (PATSIM) used to predict ground distribution patterns fromretardant release characteristics (Qs = quantity per unit of time; V Ale = aircraft velocity).

Service, used these data to develop apattern simulation model whose primary variable was the flow historyfrom the individual systems (Swanson and others 1975). Figure 2shows the relationship betweenground distribution patterns and thecharacteristics of retardant flow fromthe tank system. The initial modelused flow history derived frommotion pictures of airborne airtankerdrops. The pattern simulation model(PATSIMj was refined through theuse of accurately measured flow data(Swanson and others 1977). PATS1Mis illustrated in figure 3. As a betterunderstanding of the mechanisms ofretardant breakup, cloud formation,and resulting distribution of retardanton the ground has been gained, additions and modifications to the modelshave been made and documented(George and Johnson 1990, George1981). Output from the models hasbeen used in the development of airtanker performance guides and slidechart-retardant coverage computers(George 1981), a tank design guidefor fire retardant aircraft (Swansonand Luedecke 1978), guidelines forestimating the effects of downloading(Luedecke and Swanson 1979), andcriteria for use in establishing newairtanker requirements.

The first requirements for airtankerdelivery systems were developed byexamining the performance of airtankers, based on flow rate andvolume of drop (tank size) information. This examination identified animportant general relationship: Retardant flow rate and volume of dropdetermine the ground pattern distribution and retardant coveragelevel. (Coverage levels I, 2, 3, or 4refer respectively to I, 2, 3, or 4


Figure S-Diagram of one approach to achieving variable flow rate in a conventional tank.

3

2(Maximum (Partially (Full open)restriction) restricted)

1

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4

Time (sec)

Flow rate Coverage Fuel modelDescription

range level NFDRS FB

10D-150 A,L,S Annual and perennial Western grasses; tundra

C 2 Conifer with grass151-250 2 H,R B Shortneedle closed conifer, summer hardwood

E,P,U 9 Longneedle conifer, fall hardwood

T 2 Sagebrush with grass251-400 3 N 3 Sawgrass

F 5 Intermediate brush (green)K 11 Light slash

401-600 4 G 10 Shortneedle conifer (heavy dead litter)

0 4 Southern rough601--800 6 F,O 6 Intermediate brush (cured), Alaska black

spruce

Greater Greater B,O 4 California mixed chaparral, high pocosinthan BOO than 6 J 12 Medium slash

I 13 Heavy slash

Figure 4-Retardant flow-rate range and coverage level recommended for National Fire-DangerRating System fuel and fire behavior models.

1,000

u-800'"<Jl

~

c;;.9

600~~

;:4000

u::200

00

gallons per hundred square feet.Retardant coverage level is expressedas gallons per hundred square feet(gpc) or depth (inches or centimeters).) In addition. specific coveragelevels and flow rates have been recommended for the various fuel andfire behavior models (fig. 4). Starting in 1983, field verification ofrecommended coverage levels wasconducted through the multi-yearOperational Retardant Effectiveness(ORE) Program.

Regulating the Flow Rate. Knowing this relationship--between flowrate and volume of drop and the distribution pattern and coverage-andthe performance of airtankers presently in use, it is obvious that theflexibility and performance of individual airtankers, as well as theentire fleet, could be enhanced byincorporating in each airtanker theability to regulate the flow rate ofretardant during release. With thisgoal in mind, in 1986, the lATBdeveloped performance criteria thatwould require a variety of flow ratesto be produced by each airtanker.These criteria would thus requiremodification of existing airtankers tocontrol flow rate in a prescribedmanner, depending on the airtanker'sretardant capacity. the number ofcompartments, and the volume ofeach.

To obtain the desired flow rates, anumber of approaches to achieving

Research shows that significantimprovements in performance ofairtanker delivery systems can beobtained by allowing the flow ofretardant to be selected and controlled from the tank.


,\

II

Figure 6--Diagram of a "controllable continuousflow" SP-2H system.

3.22.82.4

These new systems also demonstrated improved efficiency (length ofline per gallon of retardant) at thevarious coverage levels over olderunimproved designs. Tables I and 2provide line production values (feet

1.2 1.6 2.0

Time (sec)

0.80.4a-f---,----,----,----,----,----,----,------,

a

.-

f\';1 1113 3 Door openings

1,000

800 3

UCD.!!! 600"iii.9CD

ri! 400;: 20

u::

200

reviews. Better acceptance of thesystems can be expected when thoseinvolved in their application, including airtanker crews and air attacksupervisors are more familiar withthem.

Implementing the Board Criteria

To implement the improved IATBdelivery system criteria developed in1986, considerable time and efforthas been required. Many of the existing airtankers in the fleet needed tobe modified and the designs growingout of the new concepts more thanlikely added to the design of new aircraft joining the fleet. With this inmind, the IATB set 1990 as thedate for implementation, and theimproved criteria became known asthe" 1990 criteria." In late 1989 andearly 1990, however, it becameapparent that, although private industry was moving to incorporate thenew performance requirements,actual implementation in 1990 wasoverly optimistic. Several systemsaimed at meeting the 1990 criteriawere developed and placed in serviceby or before 1990, however, andwere fairly successful in demonstrating the flexibility of the new systems(KC-97, C-130, and SP-2H aircraft). These new and improvedsystems are generally getting good

control of flow rate are possible. Onemethod of regulating flow is shownin figure 5. To allow for otherapproaches to achieving the controlof flow rate and thus ground >

coverage levels, evaluation methodswere written that would allow actualdrop tests to be used to demonstratethat specified ground coverage levelsand pattern lengths could be attainedwith other than conventional retardant delivery systems. Figure 6depicts an example of a controllablecontinuous flow system designed toachieve control of flow from a singletank or door system.


Average improvement of airtankersmeeting 1990 criteria

(0.31 m) of line per 100 gallons(379 L) and total line length per aircraft load) for the old and newimproved systems. A summary comparison of line length capabilities ofunimproved and improved airtankersat 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 gallons(3,785,7,571, and 11,356 L) isgiven in table 3. The average percentimprovement of airtankers meetingthe 1990 lATH criteria for coveragelevels 0.5 to 4.0 is as follows:

It now appears total implementationof the new performance criteria willoccur over the next several years.Design and construction or modification of existing delivery systems isonly the first step in attaining thevery significantly improved performance and flexibility possible, duringactual fire operations. Control systems that contain all the necessaryinputs and make flow control orretardant coverage level simple toselect might logically be the nextessential step in the development. Anew approach in selecting the type ofdrop by air attack supervisors, leadplane pilots, or others instrumental inapplying fire retardant must beagreed upon. The emphasis logicallyshould be placed on the "retardantcoverage level" for the specific fuelor fire situation. After detenninationof the appropriate coverage level bythe air attack supervisor or other per-

Table I-Line production values in feet for unimproved airtankers as a function of coverage leveland airtanker volume'

Coverage levels

Volume(gpc)

(gallon) 0.5 2 3 4 6 8

800 1,288 710 398 273 195 85 0(161) (89) (50) (34) (24) (10) (0)

1,000 1,374 793 473 340 254 128 26(137) (79) (47) (34) (25) (13) (3)

1,200 1,460 875 547 407 313 172 54(122) (73) (46) (34) (26) (14) (5)

1,400 1,547 958 622 473 372 215 82(111) (68) (44) (34) (27) (15) (6)

1,600 1,600 1,040 697 540 431 258 109(100) (65) (44) (34) (27) (16) (7)

1,800 1,720 1,123 771 607 490 301 137(96) (62) (43) (34) (27) (17) (8)

2,000 1,806 1,205 846 674 549 345 164(90) (60) (42) (34) (27) (17) (8)

2,200 1,893 1,288 921 741 608 388 192(86) (59) (42) (34) (28) (18) (9)

2,400 1,979 1,370 995 808 666 431 219(82) (57) (41) (34) (28) (18) (9)

2,600 2,066 1,453 1,070 874 725 475 247(79) (56) (41) (34) (28) (18) (10)

2,800 2,152 1,535 1,145 941 784 518 275(77) (55) (41) (34) (28) (19) (10)

3,000 2,239 1,618 1,219 1,008 843 561 302(75) (54) (41) (34) (28) (19) (10)

1Numbers in parentheses are linelengthl100 gallons.

Improvement(percent)

574221

Coverage level(gpc)0.5I2

.,


I,

Table 2--Line production values in feet for improved airtankers as a function of coverage leveland airtanker volume I

1U = l)I1improved lank; t "" improved lank meeting 1990 criteria; PI = percent improvement

Table 3-Comparisofl of line-length capabilities of improved and unimproved airtankers

, Numbers in parentheses are line length/100 gallons.

,

Literature Cited

and process briefly described here, orsome similar approach, shouldprovide these results:• Improved performance• Increased flexibility• Increased efficiency• More consistent results• Greater overall fire suppression

capability -

Blakely, Aylmer D.; George, Charles W.;Johnson, Gregg M. 1982. Static testing toevaluate airtanker performance. Gen. Tech.Rep. INT-78. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Intennountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.17 p.

George, C. W. 1975. Fire retardant grounddistribution patterns from the CL-215 airtanker. Res. Pap. INT-165. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 67 p.

George, Charles W. 1981. Determining airtanker delivery performance using a simpleslide chart-retardant coverage calculator.Gen. Tech, Rep. INT-Il3. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 7 p.

George, C. W.; Blakely, A. D. 1973. Anevaluation of the drop characteristics andground distribution patterns of forest fireretardants. Res. Pap. INT-134. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 60 p.

George, Charles W.; Johnson, Gregg M.1990. Developing air tanker performanceguidelines. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-268.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation. 96 p.

Luedecke, A. D.; Swanson, D. H. 1979.Adjustments to basic airtanker performanceguides to account for downloading. Honeywell Contract 786-2031-76 toIntermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation. 39 p.

Swanson, D. H.~ Luedecke, A. D.; Helvig,T. N. 1978. Experimental tank and gating

8

I PI

o(0)o

(0)9

(1)46(3)84(5)121(7)158(8)196(9)233(10)270(10)308(11)345(12)

255 0

586 7

916 9

4

6

38(5)90(9)142(12)194(14)245(15)297(17)349(17)400(18)452(19)504(19)556(20)607(20)

4

169(24)255(26)321(27)367(26)454(28)520(29)586(29)652(30)718(30)784(30)850(30)916(31)

Applying existing knowledge andtechnology available to the problemof aerial retardant delivery and firesuppression and using the methods

3

311(39)384(38)458(38)531(38)604(38)678(38)751(38)824(37)897(37)971(37)

1,044(37)

1,117(37)

Coverage level(gpc)

2

526(66)607(61)687(57)768(55)848(53)929(52)

1,009(50)

1,090(50)

1,170(49)

1,251(48)

1,331(48)

1,411(47)

1,114(139)1,202(120)1,289(107)1,377(98)

1,465(92)

1,552(86)

1,640(82)

1,728(79)

1,815(76)

1,903(73)

1,991(71)

2,078(69)

0.5

2,246(281)2,337(234)2,429(202)2,520(180)2,611(163)2,702(150)2,794(140)2,885(131)2,976(124)3,068(118)3,159(113)3,250(108)

Une length (feet) for coverage level (gpo)'0.5 1 2 3

U I ~ U I ~ U I ~ U I ~ U

1,3742,33770 7931,20252 473 607 28 340 384 13 254

1,806 2,794 55 1,205 1,640 36 8461,009 19 674 751 11 547

2,2393,250451,6182,07828 1,219 1,411 16 1,008 1,11711 843

800

Volume(gallon)

1,600

2,400

1,000

2,000

3,000

Volume(gallon)

2,600

2,800

3,000

2,200

sonnel, the airtanker pilot or crew 'then simply selects that levelrequested from his system control ordisplay.

1,200

1,000

1,800

2,000

1,400


I(;.-

Field Use of ImprovedAirtankers and RetardantTanks

More Reliable and More Efficient

Tank and gating systems on aircrafthave evolved during the last 20 yearsinto very reliable and increasinglyefficient dispensers of fire retardantsand suppressants. These developmentshave resulted from cooperationbetween government and privateindustry. both making a significantcontribution to improved retardanttank performance.

Cooperation and an ImportantProduct

The Operational Retardant Effectiveness (ORE) Program, a multi-yearretardant coverage evaluation programlead by the USDA Forest ServiceIntermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory at Missoula, MT, helped identifyareas in the tank and gating systemneeding improved performance. UsingORE team data, the airtanker industryproduced several technical improvements to their tank and gatingsystems. One important improvementgrowing out of recent cooperation isthe solid-state digitized intervalometer.This new generation "electronic box"gives the airtanker pilot a much moreaccurate way to open a series of tankcompartments on the airtanker. Whatdoes that mean to firefighters?-a

system (ETAGS). Final report. HoneywellContract 26-3245 to Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station. 284 p.

Swanson, D. H.; Luedecke, A. D.; Helvig,T. N.; Parduhn, F. J. 1975. Development ofUSer guidelines for selected retardant aircraft. Final report. Honeywell Contract 26-


more uniform and controllable retardant coverage level on the ground.Since most retardant is used to build achemical fireline around the fire, unifonnity and continuity of the retardanton the ground is very important.

Recent Improvements .••

..• to the Tank. The most recentimprovements in retardant tank. systemefficiency are being made to the tanksthemselves. In the past, the flow ratesfrom various types of tank systemsvaried greatly. Using the technicaladvice of the Missoula laboratory, airtanker operators are modifying theflow-rate characteristics of their retardant tanks so that all systems will beable to produce similar flow rates.

..• to the Terminology. One of themajor benefits of the latest improvements is a simplified and standardizedretardant prescription terminology.Previously, fire suppression managersneeded to use a large database ofretardant prescription tenninology tocompensate for the variances amongtank systems. Since all modified tankswill now be able to produce similarflow rates, drop instructions to flightcrews can now be given in terms of"coverage level" instead of "doornumbers" and "time delays." A firemanager can now simply ask forwhatever coverage level fits the situacon of a ground fire. No longer doeshe or she have to figure out howmany doors at a specific time delay torequest from the airtanker. The flight

3332 to Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 154 p.

Swanson, D. H.; Luedecke, A. D.'; Helvig,T. N.; Parduhn, F. J. 1977. Supplement todevelopment of user guidelines for selectedretardant aircraft. Final report. HoneywellContract 26-3332 to Intermountain Forest

crews of each air tanker will be ableto set the proper door sequence andtime delay, or in some cases, dial inthe requested coverage level into anonboard computer.

There are many advantages to sucha system. There is less room for error.The simplicity of the system shortenstraining time for firefighters and eliminates cumbersome books and sliderule type computers. The valuabledata contained in the old formats hasnow been absorbed into the new tanksystems.

Another advantage will be toshorten the amount of radio communication that was necessary with the oldretardant coverage prescription terminology. Shorter radio messages aremore easily understood and leavemore time available to the flight crewsand ground crews for other importantcommunications and tasks in the highworkload environment over a wildfue.

What's Ahead

What is emerging from these effortsto improve retardant tank system perfonnance is an example of technologybenefitting operational field personneldirectly engaged in wildfire suppression. The challenge is now fornational and regional level fire andaviation managers to train, use, evaluate, and continue improving thisvaluable fire suppression tool.•

Dave Nelson, regional aviationofficer, USDA Forest Service, Region3, Albuquerque, NM

and Range Experiment Station. 88 p.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv

ice. 1987. Interagency Airtanker Board,Spec. Rep. 8757 1801. San Dimas, CA:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Equipment Development Center.30 p.

37

National Wildland Firefighters Memorial. Each stone bearing the name of a smokejumper ismarked by a rose.

A Tribute to Smokejumpers:Dedication of the NationalWildland FirefightersMemorial

Smokejumper candidates must gothrough a month of rigorous trainingbefore being qualified to jump to awildfire. Candidates must already beexperienced firefighters before comingto the smokejumper program. Smokejumper training includes a week long"rookie camp" where grueling linedigging is practiced and timed, andllO-pound (50 kg) packouts must beaccomplished. In the z-week practiceunits that follow, smokejumpers learnjump procedures and safety practices,perform simulated jumps and gradually work up to eight practice jumps.The final week is spent on practicejumps and classroom training in firstaid, helicopter training, fire behavior,and safety procedures.

Now the real challenge lies aheadof the rookies-an actual fire jump.Each jumper exits the airplane wear-

Smokejumper Training Rigors

"In the first place, the best information I can get from experiencedfliers is that all parachute jumpers aremore or less crazy-just a little bitunbalanced, otherwise they wouldn'tbe engaged in such a hazardous undertaking ... " wrote Regional ForesterEvan W. Kelley in a letter to Me. EarlW. Loveridge in 1935. Fifty-six yearslater, the smokejumper program isDOW one of the most efficient meansof initial attack on remote wildfires.The smokejumper program began in1939, and the first fire jump wasmade by Earl Cooley and RufusRobinson on the Nez Perce NationalForest in 1940.

I .II


Bob Sallee, last survivor of the Mann Gulch Fire in which 13 smokejumpers lost their lives in/949.

..

ing an extra 65 pounds (30 kg) ofprotective equipment. Jump suits aremade of tough Kevlar fabric and linedwith foam padding. Once on theground, the jumper removes the suitand fights fire in the lighter-weightNomexw shirts and pants. When thehard work of putting out the fire iscompleted, the jumper then must lugan 85- to llO-pound (39- to 50-kg)gear bag, sometimes as far as 15miles (24 km) to the nearest road.

The Mann Gulch Fire

Smokejumping reached a low pointin August of 1949 when 13 smokejumpers perished in the Mann GulchFire on the Helena National Forest.Only 3 of the 16 men on the fire survived when the fire suddenlyexploded, trapping the jumpers in thesteep gulch. Wagner Dodge, thesmokejumper foreman, lit an escape


fire and walked in behind the flames.Foreman Dodge attempted to gatherhis men into the bum, but due to theroar of the flames, smoke, and confusion, the men misunderstood the planand chose to try and outrun the fire.Only two jumpers made it to theridgetop and down into what is nowknown as Rescue Gulch. it was therethat Walter Rumsey and Robert Salleesought refuge from the Mann Gulchflames. Foreman Dodge survived theflames by remaining inside his ownbackfire. As a result of this tragedy,new techniques in fire suppression,along with an intense study of firebehavior and fire safety became ofutmost importance. With the investigation of the Mann Gulch Fire camenew knowledge and understanding offire behavior. This understanding ispassed on to all fire crews throughclassroom and on-the-job training onfires.

In smokejumping's 51-year history,the Mann Gulch jumpers have beenthe only smokejumpers to die in theline of duty while fighting a wildfire.In over 350,000 jumps, only 3jumpers have died in jump-relatedaccidents. The smokejumpers' recordspeaks for itself. These men andwomen are among the best trainedfirefighters in the world. But youwon't hear any of them tell you that.

Recognition and Appreciation

Formal recognition of those youngmen who died fighting the MannGulch Fire has been conspicuous byits long absence. However, on May 8,1991, the National Wildland Firefighters Memorial was dedicated at theAerial Fire Depot in Missoula, MT.Families and friends of the MannGulch smokejumpers attended the dedication. coming from all over thecountry. The formal ceremony helpedto finally heal the emotional woundsleft by the tragic Mann Gulch Fire, asheard from many who attended. A letter from Johan Newcombe, sister ofone of the men who died at MannGulch, stated: "I want to say thankyou to each and all for your perseverance in gathering everyone forthe Memorial Dedication. It was trulya fantastic experience. Meeting friendsof Raymond's, seeing the Base, University of Montana, and so on, hasreally helped 10 fill Ihe void in mylife-that I've felt for 42 years. Now,I understand so much. Everyone there,families and friends, came awayenriched by the experience." •

Tracey Nimlos and TimothyEldridge, respectively, purchasingagent and assistant manager of theSmokejumper Visitors Center, USDAForest Service, Region 1, Aerial FireDepot, Missoula, MT

39

The Heavy-Lift Helicopter and Fire RetardantDrops at the Stormy Fire ComplexLynn R. Biddison

Agency liaison, Chemonics Industries, lnc., FIRE·TROL Division, Phoenix. AZ

.j-.

The Helibase---Its Managers andServices. The helibase for the complex was established at the KernValley Airport under the direction ofhelibase manager Jim Boukadis ofthe Sequoia National Forest. As partof the operation, Manager Boukadis

• A trailer-mounted pump and orifice blender for proportioningliquid FIRE-TROL® LCA concentrate and water into mixed fireretardant and loading the mixtureinto helicopter buckets, dip tanks,or airtankers

• Water pumps• Water storage tanks• Tank trailer or flex-tanks for

FIRE-TROL® LCA concentrate• Couplings, manifold, loading

valves, and accessories• Retardant dip tanks

A suitable water supply is requiredat or near the retardant base location.

Helicopters. On August 6, therewere several small- and mediumsized helicopters on the fire, assignedto moving firefighters to the firelineand keeping them supplied. The fireteam ordered a number of medium(Type II) and heavy-lift (Type I)helicopters. The helicopters in use atthe peak of the helicopter mobilization were the following:

The use of the heavy-lift helicopter' to carry fire retardant to wildlandfire control is relatively new. Theheavy-lift helicopter. classified as aType I helicopter in the NationalWildfire Coordinating Group' s Fireline Handbook 3, was first extensively used to drop fire retardant onthe 1986 Garden Valley fires on theBoise National Forest. ColumbiaHelicopters using a Vertol 107 with a1,000 gallon (3,785 L) bucket, successfully dropped fire retardant onthose fires. During the 1987, 1988,and 1989 fire seasons, the heavy-lifthelicopter saw considerable use andgained the support and confidence ofIncident Commanders, operationchiefs, air operation directors, andothers. At the August 1990 StormyFire Complex on the SequoiaNational Forest in California, thelargest number of heavy-lift helicopters for use at a wildland fire wasassembled.

Lightning Strikes

On Sunday, August 5, 1990, a drylightning storm struck much of southern and central California. On theSequoia National Forest, this stormstarted over a dozen fires. All buttwo of them, the Black and Stormy,were controlled by initial attackforces. These two fires in heavybrush below extensive timber standsin nearly inaccessible areas of the

"The Incident Command System classifies helicopters in four categories or types. Type I lifthelicopters must be capable of hauling 16 passengers (including pilot), have a gross weightof over 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg), and becapable of carrying 700 (2,650 L) plus gallonsof fire retardant. For example, a Bell 214 is aheavy-lift helicopter.

Kern River drainage escaped fromstrong aggressive initial attackefforts. When controlled, the fireshad blackened some 24,200 acres(9,800 hal of watershed, prime timber lands, and wildlife habitat.

Order for a Mobile Retardant Baseand Fire Retardant

On Monday, August 6, a Class IInteragency Fire Team arrived todirect the suppression efforts for thetwo fires. By this time, the Blackand Stormy Fires were threatening tobecome one large conflagration.These fires later became known asthe Stormy Fire Complex.

At 2:30 p.m. on August 6, Operations Chief Lonnie Briggs (LosPadres National Forest) and AirOperations Director Bob Reece(Yosemite National Park) ordered aportable fire retardant base for usewith the Type I heavy-lift helicoptersthey planned to order.

Chemonics, FIRE-TROL®, atOrland, CA, received the order for amobile retardant base (MRB) at 3:30p.m.t The MRB arrived at Kernvilleat 9:30 a.m. on August 7. Shortlyafter, a tank truck and trailer with asupply of FIRE-TROL® LeA, a liquid concentrate and long-term fireretardant arrived. By 2:00 p.rn., theunit was ready to deliver 450 gallons(1,703 L) of mixed fire retardant perminute.

Mobile Retardant Base Equipment. The FIRE-TROL® MRB, atotally self-contained unit, consistsof the following:

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

Type I2 Chinook

B-2342 S-61I S--64I Chinook

CH-47

Type 1I3 Bell 205 (Hueys)

1 UH-l (Huey)2206 B-32206 L-3

I KamanI Bell 204 (Super

Huey)1 S-58

..


A Chinook 8-234 with a 3,OOO-galion (11 ,356-L) bucket (right) and a S-M with a 2,OOO-gallon(7,571 L) bucket (left) filling up with fire retardant at the Mobile Retardant Base at the StormyFire Complex.

,

..

established the retardant base, underthe supervision of Dan Kellogg fromthe Corooado National Forest, at alarge parking area on the airport. Aseparate base for servicing and parking the Type I heavy-lift ships wasestablished about 2 miles (3 km)south of the airport. This base wasunder the supervision of MikeFogarty from the San BernardinoNational Forest. The air attack supervisors also worked out of the KernValley Airport and Helibase. Crashand rescue service was provided bypersonnel from the China Lake NavalWeapons Center. Because the StormyFire Complex was oat far from theKern Valley Airport and generated alot of air traffic, the Bakersfield,CA, office of the Federal AviationAdministration, upon request of theU.S. Forest Service, sent two flightcontrollers to the airport.

if=.!f}~

The Type I heavy-lift helicopterswere so successful that the IncidentCommander was able to release tbeairtankers from the Stormy FireComplex for assignment to otherfires.

Retardant Delivery Start-up. OnAugust 8, Rogers Helicopters andSiller Bros., call-when-needed helicopters (CWN), started operationsfrom the retardant base, using aKaman and an S-61. They deli vered12,800 gallons (48,452 L) of FlRETROL® LCA lire retardant to thefireline.

Next-Day Delivery and Evacuation. On August 9, 77,100 gallons(291,847 L) of LCA fire retardantwere delivered to the fireline by thefollowing helicopters:

r

)-

• Kaman (I helicopter, 2 trips,Rogers Helicopters) 1,600 gallons(6,053 L)

• S-61 (I helicopter, 25 trips, SillerBros.) 15,000 gallons (56,780 L)

• S-64 (I helicopter,S trips, SillerBros.) 5,000 gallons (18,927 L)

• B-234 (I helicopter, 19 trips,Columbia Helicopters) 55,550 gallons (210,274 L)Columbia Helicopters's B-234

dipped LCA from a 5,000-gallon(l8,927-L) dip tank it brings withits helicopters. The other shipsdipped from the dip tanks providedwith the MRB.

At approximately 3:00 p.m., theCalifornia Department of Forestryhelicopter 101 (UH-l) informedStormy Air Attack, erratic firebehavior made it necessary to evacuate lire line personnel from Helispot2. Radio transmissions from 101 andAir Attack indicated additional aircraft were needed to expedite theevacuation. To help with the emergency, Morgan Mills, Region 5helicopter specialist and pilot, authorized the use of restricted categoryhelicopters to supplement other helicopters at the scene. Two B-234's, aKaman, and a S-58 were reassignedto assist with the evacuation. Over200 people were flown to safety inapproximately 40 minutes.

Three Days of Retardant Deliveries. On August 10, helicopterretardant operations began at 8:00a.m, and had to be terminated at4: 10 p.m. because of heavy smokeand poor visibility. During this8-hour period, 189,500 gallons(679,414 L) of lire retardant weredelivered to the fireline. The shipsinvolved and the gallons deliveredwere:


• B-234 (2 helicopters, 61 trips,Columbia Helicopters) 176,300gallons (667,348 L)

• S-61 (J helicopter, 20 trips, SillerBros.) 12,000 gallons (45,424 L)

• Kaman (J helicopter, 3 trips,Rogers Helicopters) 1,200 gallons(4,542 L)The round-trip times for the

B-234's, devoted solely to droppingLCA long-term fire retardant,were most often in the 9- to13-minute range. The S-61 andKaman were used intennittently todrop fire retardant. At other times,they dipped water from a stream,added a Class A foam concentrate inflight, and delivered this mixture tothe fireline.

On August II, helicopter retardantoperations began at 8:43 a.m. andterminated at 6:15 p.m. During thisperiod of time, 193,640 gallons(694,258 L) of fire retardant weredelivered from the base to the fireline. The ships involved and thegallons delivered were:• B-234 (2 helicopters, 57 trips,

Columbia Helicopters) 164,300gallons (621,925 L)



• Kaman (I helicopter, 15 trips,Rogers Helicopters) 6,000 gallons(22,712 L)The B-234's dipped the mixed

retardant from one dip tank. TheKaman dipped from a separate tank.The S-61 and S-64 buckets, eachequipped with a Kam-lock fitting,were filled by a 3-inch (7.6-cm) hosedirectly from the MRB trailermounted blending and loading pump.

42

This same unit was also keeping thedip tanks filled with retardant.

The B-234's were assigned primarily to deliver fire retardant. Theother ships were periodicallyassigned to deliver fire retardant andat other times to dip water from astream, add a Class A foam concentrate inflight, and deliver this to thefireline.

The round-trip times for theB-234's were most often in the IOta 16-minute range; the Kaman, 16to 23-minute; and the S-61, 10- to17-minute. 5-64 use was toointermittent to permit calculatingmeaningful round-trip times.

FIRE-TROL® LCA was blended atthe ratio of 5 parts water to I partLCA. The water was pumpeddirectly from the Kern River to portable tanks that are part of the MRB.It was possible to mix and load193,640 gallons (732,986 L) of fireretardant in only 10 hours from onefire retardant base.

On August 12, helicopter retardantoperations began at 7:24 a.m. withtwo Columbia Helicopters, B-234's.By 11:30 a.m., they made 21 roundtrips delivering 61,400 gallons(232,417 L) of fire retardant to thefireline. At 11:14 a.m., the S-61 andS-64 were again assigned to retardant operations. Total retardantdelivered for the day was 133,625gallons (505,811 L).

The breakdown by ships and gallons delivered is as follows:• B-234 (2 helicopters, 33 trips,

Columbia Helicopters) 97,100 gallons (367,753 L)



The round-trip times for theB-234's were from 13 to 36 minutes;for the S-61 from 10 to 27 minutes;and the S-64 from 9 to 28 minutes.

On August 12 at approximately5:30 p.m., the Nick Fire started inthe Domeland Wilderness Area of theSequoia National Forest. Air tankersand handcrews were not available.Three of the Type I heavy-lift helicopters with retardant were divertedto this fire. The fire was controlled at42 acres (J7 ha). Incident Commander Mike Smith reported thiswould have become another majorfire without the heavy-lift helicoptersand the fire retardant they were ableto deliver from the MRB.

During the Stormy Fire Complex,many major fires burned throughoutcentral and northern California,Idaho, Oregon, Washington, andAlaska. As a result, there was a critical shortage of airtankers. The TypeI heavy-lift helicopters were so successful that the Incident Commanderwas able to release the airtankersfrom the Stormy Fire Complex forassignment to other fires. In addition,because of topography on parts of theincident, only helicopters couldsafely and successfully drop fireretardant.

The Stormy Fire Complex demonstrated that Type I heavy-lifthelicopters operating from an MRBcan deliver fire retardant to the fireline effectively and with a positivecost-benefit ratio. Cost figures for the1990 fire season, developed by JerryVice, helitack specialist, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Region,show the average delivery cost of fireretardant from the Type I helicoptersto be 0.65 cents per gallon. Deliverycosts of retardant from airtankers are


',j

in the range of $ L 00 to $ L 25 pergallon,

The use of Type I heavy-lift helicopters on large fires is not a

Rebuilding FEPP Engines:A Nebraska InnovationImproves Quality

The problem described by the firechief from the Friend Rural FireDistrict, a fire district in a communitywith a population just over 1,000 insoutheastern Nebraska, was not a newone. The district's Federal ExcessPersonal Property (FEPP) water tanker(a 1952 military General MotorsCorporatioo (GMC) 6 x 6) was notrunning well. It did not have much oilpressure, was making unusual enginenoises, and was suddenly short ofpower. The solutions offered by thelocal mechanic in Friend were: Try torepair the vehicle or"replace itentirely. But, he went on to say hewould not attempt the engine repairbecause he "knew nothing about thoseold trucks. "

After pricing an all-wheel drivereplacement vehicle, the fire chiefcalled the Nebraska Forest Service,the source from whom the fire districtacquired the vehicle some yearsearlier, and asked if help wasavailable. The answer was-"Yes!"

The Nebraska Forest Service FireEquipment Shop in Lincoln, NE, hasprovided FEPP vehicles to Nebraska'sfire districts since 1963. During thistime, many military-type FEPPvehicles in various stages of disrepairpassed through the shop, emergingmechanically sound and ready forassignment to fire districts. The "tiredengine" problem was originallysolved by removing a good runningengine from a vehicle that had other

replacement for any currently usedresources. They are another toolextremely useful in the proper timeand place to wildland firefighters, -

mechanical troubles. However. as theengines aged, the quality of the "takeout" engines declined.

Engine Rebuilding

In the early 1980's, an enginerebuilding program was begun withthe goal of having, on hand, onerebuilt motor for each type of militaryFEPP vehicle used in the NebraskaForest Service fire protection program.As a result, engines were rebuilt andeither shipped to the rural fire districtfor installation or installed at the fireequipment shop.

The engines installed at the shopwere driven 50 to 100 miles (81 to161 Ian) after installation. This"break-in" time allowed mechanics toadjust the carburetor and also to findleaks or other problems. Enginesshipped directly to the field andinstalled there often did not performas wen as shop-installed engines.

Stand for Engine Testing

As a result of all this, our enginerebuilding mechanic, Don Vietz,suggested that an engine "test stand"be built for each type of engine. Eachrebuilt engine would be operated atvarying speeds for 4 to 6 hourstested to identify problems-beforeinstallation or shipping.

A test stand for the GMC 6 x 6engine, the most frequentlyoverhauled. was built first, and laterone was built for the REO 6 X6. Awelded angle-iron frame with motormounts, radiator, control panel,compressed air tank, electric fuel

pump, and an exhaust pipe withmuffler was built using manycomponents from a "cannibalized"6x6 engine.

When an engine overhaul has beencompleted, the unit is then placed onthe test stand and all of the sendingunits for the control panel gauges arehooked up so that oil pressure, watertemperature, air pressure, andcharging rate can be monitored whilethe engine is on the test stand. At thistime, the carburetor is.adjusted,ignition timing set, the engine checkedfor leaks, and any other problems thatmight surface are fixed immediately.

The end result is a rebuilt motorthat runs wen and is ready to install ina PEPP firefighting vehicle withminimum downtime and maximumuser confidence, •

Eric J. Rasmussen, rural firetraining and equipment manager,Nebraska Forest Service, University ofNebraska, Lincoln. NE.


Order Proc_ing Code:

* 6131o YES, enter my subscription as follows:

United StatesDepartment 01 Agriculture

Washington, D.C.20250

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPenalty for Private Use, $300

Superintendent of Documents Subscriptions Order Form

Charge your order.~~It's Easyl ~iIIiiiiIII

To fax your orders (202) 512-2233

__ subscriptions to FIRE MANAGEMENT NOTES (FCN) for $6.50 per year ($8.15 foreign),

ONew ORenewal

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

(Company or Personal Name)

(Additional address/attention line)

(Street address)

(Please type or print)Please Choose Method of Payment:

o Check Payable to the Superintendent of Documents

o GPO Deposit Account ITCIIIIJ - 0o V1SA or MasterCard Account

(City, State, ZIP Code)

(Daytime phone including area rode)

ITITl (Credit card expiration date)

(Authorizing Signature)

Thank you foryour order!

'M'(Purchase Order No.) YES NO

May we make your name/address 8V8l1able to other mailers'! 0 0Mail To: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents

P.O. Box 371954,Pittsburgh, PA 15250--7954