For the remainder of my visit to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) and while in Boise I was generously hosted by Dick Bahr, the Lead for the Fire Science & Ecology Program in the National Park Service (NPS), Branch of Wildland Fire.
Dick introduced me to Jeremy Sullens from Predictive Services. Jeremy told me about the National Fire Danger Rating System, which is based on the fuel moisture data collected from the Remote Area Weather Stations (RAWS), and other factors such as topography, weather and other risk factors from all around the country. The fire danger rating arbitrarily applies one fuel model across the country so that a numeric scaling of fire potential can be calculated. The fire danger rating outputs include; the potential of a fire initiating that is assumed to spread through continuous fuels on a uniform slope; assesses the likelihood of fire containment, in “near worst case” conditions at exposed locations at the peak of the normal burning period.
Everyday a fire danger rating is calculated and broadcast for anyone who is interested. Firefighters are trained to understand the fire danger rating as well as being given a pocket card that helps them to decipher the daily rating for their own safety on the fireground. The rating is also an important business tool for fire managers to inform the level of preparedness for fire combat agencies, and where resources may be stationed at the ready.
Jeremy also told me about a new concept he is developing to make comparisons between fire seasons. The comparison is based on the amount spent and the resources committed from year to year, rather than the area burned. He told me he didn’t believe that area burned was a very good way of comparing seasons, and that total percentage of resources committed would give a much better handle on the dimensions of the fire season.
Next I had a fascinating discussion with Nate Benson, the Fire Ecologist Program Leader for the NPS. We talked about the parks I had visited and the programs in place to measure fire effects, including the Fire Monitoring Handbook protocols. We discussed the fuels monitoring programs and how fire ecologists are encouraged to tailor data collection to meet their own specific needs and questions, and try not to just slavishly collect the fuels monitoring data according to the FMH.
Nate told me about how he has been involved in developing the
FFI (FEAT and Firemon Integrated), an ecological monitoring software application, which is an amalgam of two previous programs, that stores and analyses fire effects data and fuels and vegetation data. The FFI allows for flexibility in designing fuels and vegetation monitoring, although it incorporates a range of monitoring program designs as part of its architecture. It has been under development for the last couple of years and the latest iteration is presently nearing completion.
We further talked about the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity project that Eric Gdula and Windy Bunn showed us in Grand Canyon National Park. As well as taking account of monitoring burn severity there is a time component that looks at fire history and adds a layer for vegetation succession; mapping changes in species composition, fuel accumulation metrics as well as collecting data on invasive plants. All the data is available online to anyone and the thresholds for level of detail that is mapped is dependant on the local level of interest. This spatial analysis helps to give an understanding of the mosaic of fire intensity and serves to guide planning for prescribed burning as well as recording how fire has moved across the landscape. The landsat imagery is an economic way of looking at the fire mosaic from recently burned, to burn severity and the magnitude of change after a fire. Fascinating stuff!
Finally I had a discussion with Rich Scwab about the Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Teams and their role in fire. Rich told me that the teams are made up of mainly “ologists”; biologists; geologists; zoologists; hydrologists, archaeologists and so on. Members of the team are not primarily firefighters so they don’t get caught up in the business of firefighting, but turn their attention to what needs to happen to rehabilitate an area after a fire. Before leaving on assignment the BAER team figures out the values at risk so they can take the right specialists to address those issues. Upon arrival at a site they triage the areas so they commence rehab on those places at highest risk and get to work quickly assessing the work that needs doing, as well as undertaking it, on the spot. It is like first aid for ecosystems damaged after fire and the jobs can range from arresting soil erosion to protect water catchments, or protecting vulnerable cultural sites from being damaged due to exposure. BAER Teams from the US came to Australia during the devastating 2009 Victorian Fires and the concept is being implemented in Victoria, the ACT and possibly NSW. Rich told me that the contact he has had with people from Australian fire agencies has been impressive and he felt that the system was being streamlined and there were great improvements and efficiencies being made in Australia, building on the US model.
Thanks to all at the NPS Fire Science and Ecology Program at NIFC including, Dick, Jeremy, Nate, Rich and to Bill Kaage and especially to Dick’s wife Deb, for her friendship and all the after hours fun!
 |
| wine tasting on the weekend with Deb (and Dick) Bahr |
