Resources Deployment Criteria for a Wildland Fire

By Thembi Borras

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) responds to over 5,600 wildland fires each year. CDF is responsible for protecting over 31 million acres of California’s privately owned wildlands. The heart of CDF’s emergency response capability is a force of nearly 4,000 full-time fire professionals, foresters, and administrative employees; 1,400 seasonal firefighters; 5,600 local government volunteer firefighters; 2,600 volunteers in fire prevention; and 4,300 inmates and wards that currently comprise 196 fire crews. CDF operates a number of facilities including 806 fire stations. CDF staffs 13 air attack bases and nine helitack bases. Further CDF operates over 1,095 fire engines; 215 rescue squads; 63 paramedic units; 12 hazmat units; 38 aerial ladder trucks; 58 bulldozers; 5 mobile communication centers; and 11 mobile kitchen units. From the air CDF operates 23 1,200-gallon airtankers, 11 Super Huey helicopters, and 13 airtactical planes. This represents only a portion of the resources available in the multiagency effort to fight fire in California each year.

Given fire fighting entities know little more than whether it is going to be a good fire year or a bad fire year at the beginning of the season, have you ever wondered how this body of resources is deployed once a fire has been detected? Deployment of resources is a function of fire danger, weather, access, terrain, protecting lives, firefighter availability, fire suppression standards, fuel loading, protecting structures, support personnel availability, wildland-urban interface, publicity and notoriety, recreational and esthetic values and equipment availability. One important criteria which influences deployment of resources is fire danger.

Fire danger is expressed as a rating that integrates the effects of existing and potential fire danger factors into a series of numeric “components” and “index’s”, including ignition component, spread component, energy release component and burning index that indicate fire spread and intensity. A fire danger rating assists the fire manager in being able to determine the potential, over large geographical areas, for fires to ignite, spread, and require suppression action.

Imagine you had 100 matches and you individually lit each one and flipped it into a pile of pine needles, if 75 actually started a fire, the value of the ignition component, expressed as a percentage, would be 75%.

The spread component is the forward rate of spread expressed in feet per minute. A spread component of 25 means that the forward rate of spread is 25 feet/per minute.

The energy release component is related to the available energy, measured in Btu/ square foot within the flaming front at the head of a fire. The available energy is directly related to the amount of fuel, type of fuel and fuel moisture content.

The burning index is related to how hard the fire is to contain. The burning index value is flame length X 10.

A portion of this production was gleaned from the fact sheets on the CDF website at www.fire.ca.gov, The United States Forest Service publication entitled Policy Implications of Large Fire Management available at www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/Large_Fire_Mgt.pdf and the Fire Danger Rating System described on the website www.sierrafront.net/indexcomponents.htm.

Jackson Demo State Forest Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives Evaluation

By Thembi Borras

The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed management plan for JDSF and seeks public input. JDSF is 50,000 acres and is the largest of the eight Demonstration State Forests that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) operates. Since 2001, timber harvest on JDSF has been suspended due to legal action; the DEIR for the proposed management plan is intended to move the status of management of JDSF from inactive toward active.

I evaluated the seven alternatives proposed in the DEIR based on silviculture, growth and yield and the use of herbicides, which I believe are essential issues.

Note: Uneven-Aged management includes prescriptions such as single tree selection and group selection. Even-Aged management includes prescriptions such as clearcutting, seed tree and shelterwood. Annual allowable harvest is projected out a minimum of 10 years.

Alternative A (minimal management)
Uneven-Aged Management/ Even-Aged Management: No harvest, no site preparation, no thinning, no planting.
Annual Allowable Harvest: Not applicable.
Herbicide Use: Limited for road maintenance.

Alternative B (continue 1983 plan)
Uneven-Aged Management: Yes.
Even-Aged Management: Yes.
Annual Allowable Harvest: 36 million board feet (MMBF)/year (nearly equal to the present estimated growth).
Herbicide Use: Yes.

Alternative C1 (CDF May 2002 DFMP, preferred Alternative by CDF)
Uneven-Aged Management: Yes, allowed on approximately 24,000 acres.
Even-Aged Management: Yes, allowed on approximately 11,000 acres.
Annual Allowable Harvest: 31 MMBF/year.
Herbicide Use: Yes.

Alternative C2 (CDF November 2002 Plan)
Uneven-Aged Management: Yes, allowed on approximately 22,500 acres.
Even-Aged Management: Yes, allowed on approximately 10,000 acres.
Annual Allowable Harvest: 31 MMBF/year.
Herbicide Use: Yes.

Alternative D (Citizens Advisory Committee proposal)
Uneven-Aged Management: Yes.
Even-Aged Management: No clearcutting. Other prescriptions restricted to limited demonstration.
Annual Allowable Harvest: 25 MMBF/year.
Herbicide Use: Herbicides would not be allowed in site preparation or vegetation control. There would be a three-year moratorium on chemical use for control of invasive species.

Alternative E (Late Seral Forests)
Uneven-Aged Management: Yes.
Even-Aged Management: No.
Annual Allowable Harvest: 8 MMBF/year.
Herbicide Use: No.

Alternative F (Older Forests Emphasis)
Uneven-Aged Management: Yes.
Even-Aged Management: No.
Annual Allowable Harvest: 19 MMBF/year.
Herbicide Use: Use herbicides only if other approaches fail.


Alternative D (Citizens Advisory Committee proposal), in my opinion, appears to have the greatest chance of successfully balancing environmental values, economic viability and public support. If there is enough public buy-in, then perhaps further legal wrangling can be avoided. Alternative D also best fits my vision of public forest management because it is strong on building inventory, strong on selection prescriptions and does not suggest incorporating herbicide use as a customary part of forest management. Building inventory and improving stand structure are cornerstones of sustainable forestry, although selection prescriptions do not inherently imply improved stand structure, this is only inherent in good decisions made on the ground regarding which trees will be cut and which will be left. Selection prescriptions done well are opportunities to take value from the forest and improve the transportation infrastructure, at the same time keeping pre harvest habitat the same as post harvest habitat, improving aesthetics by maintaining a continuous forest canopy and encouraging fewer large stems and minimizing adverse watershed effects through a low level of canopy removal.