NWCG reconfigures Incident Management Teams

The National Wildfire Coordinating Group has decided to make a major change in the configuration of Wildland Fire Incident Management Teams (IMTs). Saying “the current workforce management and succession planning for wildfire incident management is not sustainable”, the plan is for Type 1 Incident Management Teams and Type 2 Incident Management Teams to evolve into “Complex IMTs”.

Going forward the organization will be recognizing three levels of interagency wildland fire response: Initial Attack, Extended Attack, and Complex. As part of this transition, State and Federally sponsored Type 1 and Type 2 Wildland Fire IMTs will evolve into “Complex IMTs” utilizing current Type 1 standards as their guiding principles.

This change was a product of the Evolving Incident Management project which recommended a reduction in federally sponsored IMTs from the current 53 to 40, with State sponsored teams assisting with a national surge capacity. There is still a lot to be figured out, including transition plans, the distribution of IMTs across the Geographic Areas, and their capacity to sponsor and fill the positions on the teams.

The memo from the NWCG.

 

Thanks go out to Ken

Saving the sequoia groves from the Rim Fire — by using fire as a tool

NPS crew at the Tuolumne Grove of Giant Sequoias
NPS crew at the Tuolumne Grove of Giant Sequoias. InciWeb photo.

The Los Angeles Times has an excellent article written by Diana Marcum which tells the story of how firefighters on the Rim Fire worked to prevent the giant sequoia and old growth sugar pine groves in Yosemite National Park from being consumed by the fire. Everyone would agree that these trees are worth saving. Sequoias grow to an average height of 160 to 280 feet and 20 to 26 feet in diameter. The oldest known sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old.

About two weeks after the fire started it was still burning through drought-afflicted vegetation in a manner that mostly confounded and frustrated the 5,000 firefighters trying desperately to stop the spread. It was moving toward the groves that had survived many fires over hundreds or thousands of years, but this fire was not like the relatively cool, slow moving lightning-caused fires that the trees had evolved to to live with. It threatened to wipe them out.

With the Rim Fire only one or two days away from the national treasure trees, firefighters decided their only hope of saving them was to treat the groves with fire, a controlled fire under their own conditions, before the main fire got there. This relatively cool fire would remove most of the fuel on the ground and hopefully prevent the very intense main fire from roaring through the groves, possibly killing the 3,000-year old trees. It was their only hope.

But the test fire worried them when 50-foot flames leaped into the sky.

Below are some excerpts from the must-read article:

****

“…Inside Yosemite, officials had tried to restore the natural cycle of fire. For 40 years, lightning-sparked flames in wilderness areas had been left to burn, and specialists lighted controlled burns near tourist areas. But that might not offer enough protection.

“Hypothetically those old fire scars would slow the fire the further it moved into the park,” said Gus Smith, Yosemite’s fire ecologist. “But the Rim fire was like a flood, and it was coming. This was not the fire you wanted to test out a hypothesis.”

[…]

The sequoias evolved to face wildfire. But officials feared that this fire could kill even trees that had been shrugging off flames since before Rome burned.

[Ben] Jacobs and Taro Pusina, Yosemite’s deputy fire chief, drew up a plan. They would set three coordinated backfires and try to stop the wildfire with a “catcher’s mitt” of charred earth.

But first they would wind the fires through two of the very groves they were trying to protect. The Tuolumne and Merced groves were at the top of a ridge, in the direct line of the Rim fire, in an area that had not burned for 100 years. If the hotter Rim fire reached them, it could climb to the tops of 200-foot trees.

A lot could go wrong. If the backfires were too hot, they could cook the groves. If they did not burn enough ground in time, the Rim fire would roar through unblocked. Those two groves and the Merced Grove to the south would burn, the lookout tower and helicopter base would burn, and the firefighters would have to run.

“We knew it was a longshot,” Pusina said. “But no amount of bulldozers or planes or crews had stopped this fire. We were out of options.”

[…]

The next day, with the first grove still burning, a handful of firefighters drove into the Tuolumne grove, a mile to the east.

A fire crew from Arizona had prepared the area — raking debris away from trees, sawing snags and logs. Many of them had never seen a giant sequoia, which is native only on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The species dates back to the Ice Age.

“They were in awe of the trees. They kept looking up as they worked,” recalled Gary Oye, division chief of wilderness stewardship…”

Rim Fire: soil severity and vegetation severity

A U.S. Forest Service wildland fire ecologist that the Associated Press quoted as describing the area burned in the 250,000-acre Rim Fire in and near Yosemite National Park as “nuked” stirred up some controversy with his quoted remarks. It is difficult to use a subjective one-word description to sum up the varied fire effects on a huge fire that burned for weeks under an assortment of weather, vegetation, and topography conditions.

Most of the early assessments of burn severity on a large fire are derived from multiple sensors on satellites that are orbiting hundreds of miles above the earth. Using data from individual sensors, or combining information from multiple sensors, scientists can compare recent data with historical records to produce maps highlighting their area of interest. Two of the most common burn severity maps you will see are vegetation and soil severity.

The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team assigned to the Rim Fire has publicized their version, soil burn severity maps which specifically focus on severity to soils and watersheds. The primary objective of the BAER team is to identify imminent post-wildfire threats to human life, safety, property, and critical natural or cultural resources and to take immediate actions to implement emergency stabilization measures before the first major storms. Their map of September 13 shows approximately 56% of the fire is either unburned or received a low-severity burn, 37% sustained a burn of a moderate severity, and approximately 7% burned at high severity.

The September 17, 2013 Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) map produced by the USFS’ Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC) analyzed vegetation severity produced by a change detection process using two Landsat Thematic Mapper images captured before and after the fire. They came up with very different numbers: 35% unchanged or low-severity, 27% moderate severity, and 38% high severity.

The maps from the two organizations are below. Larger versions can be seen HERE and HERE. Also included in the gallery are photos showing two areas burned in the fire, and a photo taken two hours after the fire started.

[portfolio_slideshow]

Forest Service retirees speak out about fire and forest management

Three well known and respected retirees from the U.S. Forest Service have written articles about the current state of forest and fire management and provide advice about where we should go from here. Below are some excerpts that were published by what appears to be a forward-thinking organization, FireSafe Montana.

The first is from Jerry Williams, Former National Director of Fire and Aviation for the US Forest Service, titled “Situational Assessment at the Policy Level: Adapting to a New Reality”:

…In an era where federal budget deficit reduction efforts need to occur, should we go “all-in” with suppression capacity, or should greater priority be given to prevention and hazard mitigation? What are the long-term risks and consequences of alternative wildfire protection strategies?

As much of the West continues to move into a hotter, drier climate cycle, the need intensifies to more urgently adapt regulations, policies, plans, and practices to a changed circumstance and a new reality. Perhaps it is time to pause and — much like we ask of our firefighters – re-assess the situation before we go much further. At this point, the consequences of doing what we have always done may be pushing a potentially bad position that is not well accounted.

Bob Mutch, who retired from a 38-year career in wildland fire research and management with the U.S. Forest Service, wrote “Just Leave the Line”, an article about the risks facing firefighters and at what point should they place more emphasis on protecting themselves than saving structures or vegetation.

…At the 2005 Safety Summit in Missoula, Montana, the goal of Zero Defects was proposed—in other words, no injuries or fatalities during the conduct of our fire business. Such an undertaking leads us away from the un-mindful (mindless?) position that firefighting is dangerous, people will make mistakes, and bad things will sometimes happen. Under that premise we can simply say “I told you so!” when the bad event occurs. With a commitment to zero defects, when an injury or worse happens we are immediately placed on notice that an intolerable action has occurred that must be corrected. Or better yet we will become so much more mindful because we are anticipating the worst that we prevent the unwanted outcome from happening in the first place.

Stephen F. Arno, a retired research forester with the Rocky Mountain Research Station considered the increasing number of acres burned in recent decades and has some advice about stemming the tide, in “Living with Fire-dependent Forests”:

…Westerners will continue to be plagued by increasing peril and costs of wildfires until we adopt a saner attitude about the role of fire in our forests. For some inspiration we could look to the Southeastern U.S., where states have “right-to-burn” laws (limiting liability to reasonable levels) and provide extension forestry help to foster responsible prescribed burning by private landowners. We could do likewise by accepting that fire will continue to be a fact of life in our forests, but that we can influence the way fire affects our forest by managing its structure and its fuel using mechanical treatments, fuel removal, pile burning, and prescribed fire. Even in the most severe conflagrations of recent years, forest properties and homesites that were thinned and made fire-resistant experienced far less damage. It is high time to heed the advice that California timberman George Hoxie published in 1910: We had best adopt fire as our servant; otherwise it will be our master.

I like Mr. Arno’s last line: “We had best adopt fire as our servant; otherwise it will be our master.” 

IAWF logo

That is what I think of when I see the logo of the International Association of Wildland Fire, which was actually inspired by the myth of Prometheus stealing fire from Zeus and giving it to humanity.

New guide for accident reports requires conclusions and recommendations to be kept secret

New guide for wildfire accident reports requires conclusions and recommendations to be kept secret, intended for internal agency use only.

On Friday we wrote about some of the controversial issues that have surfaced in recent weeks related to the deaths of the 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots on the June 30 Yarnell Hill Fire. One of them, covered by the USA Today, concerned the reports prepared by the Serious Accident Investigation team.

The latest Serious Accident Investigation Guide, revised just last month, was written by representatives of the five federal land management agencies and recommends that two reports be prepared. One, the Factual Report, would be made public, and the other, the Management Evaluation Report, would be confidential, and intended for internal agency use only.

According to the new guide released last month, “Only the facts go into the Factual Report— no inferences, conclusions, or recommendations.”

The confidential Management Evaluation Report would include:

  • Findings identified in the Factual Report
  • Cause(s) of the accident
  • Conclusions and observations
  • Confidential information (no witness statements or autopsy reports)
  • Recommendations for corrective measures
  • Other findings—findings not related to the accident which if left uncorrected could lead to future accidents/organizational failures (follow specific agency policy regarding other findings)

If conclusions and recommendations are kept secret, only to be seen by a few people, this would severely limit the opportunities to learn any lessons that could prevent similar tragedies.

These recommendations released in August, if followed by the teams writing the reports for the Arizona state government and others in the future, would result in public reports that are much different from those we have seen in recent years. Some that come to mind that include causes, contributing factors, or recommendations are the CR 337 Fire Fatality, the Steep Corner Fire Fatality, the Dutch Creek Fire fatality (huge 21Mb file), and the Sadler Fire entrapment.

The five people who wrote the new guide may be fearful of lawsuits and criminal charges which began after the 2001 Thirtymile Fire. Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Doc Hastings, in a knee-jerk reaction to that fire, wrote the Cantwell-Hastings bill which was approved by Congress, signed by the President, and became Public Law 107-203 in 2002. It requires that in the case of a fatality of a U.S. Forest Service employee “due to wildfire entrapment or burnover, the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture shall conduct an investigation of the fatality” which would be independent of any investigation conducted by the USFS.

Before the Thirtymile Fire the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General’s office had no experience or training in the suppression or investigation of wildland fires. They are much more likely to be investigating food stamp fraud or violations at a chicken ranch than evaluating fire behavior and tactical decisions at a wildfire. The goal of the Inspector General investigation is to determine if any crimes were committed, so that a firefighter could be charged and possibly sent to prison.

After the trainee wildland fire investigator for the OIG finished looking at the Thirtymile fire, on January 30, 2007 the crew boss of the four firefighters that died was charged with 11 felonies, including four counts of manslaughter. The charges were later reduced to two counts of making false statements to which he pleaded guilty on August 20, 2008. He was sentenced to three years of probation and 90 days of work release.

This had a chilling effect on firefighters who are required to make split-second decisions that later may be second guessed by a jury with no clue of what it is like to be faced with a life and death situation on a rapidly spreading wildfire.

Since those felony charges were filed against a firefighter who may or may not have made an error in judgement while fighting a fire, most wildland firefighters with any connection at all to a serious accident have had reservations about talking to investigators. They are being advised behind the scenes to “lawyer up” and to say little if anything about what they know or observed. Many have purchased professional liability insurance which would help to defray the cost of hiring attorneys which otherwise could ruin the financial lives of underpaid government employees and their families.

The unintended consequences of Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Doc Hastings’ legislation has changed fire investigations. If firefighters can’t feel free to discuss what happened on a fire, finding any lessons to be learned is going to be difficult. This could result in the same mistakes costing more lives.

It was just a few years ago that firefighters were told “we do not bend, we do not break” the 10 Standard Firefighting Orders, and you better obey the 18 Watch Out Situations. The new investigation guidelines and the Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations now describe them as:

…not absolute rules. They require judgment in application.

Accident investigators, including the amateurs from the Office of Inspector General’s office, have found it easy to use the Orders and Situations as a checklist, saying “x” number of them were violated. That later becomes fodder for attorneys in civil suits and prosecutors seeking to put firefighters in prison.

It appears that the writers of the new investigation guide placed more emphasis on preventing criminal charges and civil lawsuits than learning lessons when they decided to keep secret the conclusions and recommendations following serious accidents. They may feel they were forced into this very uncomfortable position because of the current lawsuit and criminal prosecution atmosphere.

How do we fix this?

The military has the benefit of a law that is the opposite of the Cantwell-Hastings bill. They have the protection of 10 U.S.C. 2254(d), which states that in the case of an aircraft accident:

Use of Information in Civil Proceedings.—For purposes of any civil or criminal proceeding arising from an aircraft accident, any opinion of the accident investigators as to the cause of, or the factors contributing to, the accident set forth in the accident investigation report may not be considered as evidence in such proceeding, nor may such information be considered an admission of liability by the United States or by any person referred to in those conclusions or statements.

Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Doc Hastings need to suck it up and admit their knee-jerk reaction to the Thirtymile fire has caused a great deal of unintended harm. In 2001 they thought their ill advised idea might enhance the safety of firefighters, but it has accomplished the reverse. Lessons learned are becoming more difficult to uncover. Mistakes are more likely to be repeated because of their legislation which became Public Law 107-203. They wanted investigations, but investigations have always occurred following serious accidents. Their legislation had zero benefits, and had far-reaching negative consequences.

Senator Cantwell and Representative Hastings should feel a moral obligation to fix the problem they created. They need to craft legislation to protect firefighters, similar to that protecting the military in 10 U.S.C. 2254(d).

Controversy surrounds the Yarnell Hill Fire fatalities

Yarnell Hill Fire
Yarnell Hill Fire. Photo by Joy Collura.

It is enough of a tragedy that 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots died while fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire on June 30. But several issues continue to pour salt into the wounds of the grieving families and others that mourn their deaths. Some issues will hopefully diminish when the two reports become public. Or, in a worse case, they could be made worse, or new ones could be unearthed.

The Serious Accident Investigation which was commissioned by the Arizona State Forestry Division is expected to be public within the next week or so, but only after it is distributed first to the families of the 19 victims.

The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health, a state version of federal OSHA, is also working on a report. It is required to be complete no later than six months after their investigation was announced, which would make it due around the first part of 2014.

The controversy about the the large differences in the survivor benefits for the families of the full time and seasonal firefighters on the Granite Mountain Hotshots has been festering for weeks and is now being discussed in the Arizona legislature.

Another issue that came to light recently is the refusal of the Yavapai County Sheriff’s and Medical Examiner’s offices to release the autopsy reports for the 19 firefighters. This has escalated to the point where the Arizona Republic and 12 News have filed suit against the agencies. The Arizona Republic and 12 News realize that certain photographs of the bodies and perhaps other evidence may not be appropriate to be released, but they are adamant that the remaining records should be released and feel their demands are backed by state law.

Still another issue that will be debated was published by the Arizona Republic and picked up by the USA TodayIt relates to the reports prepared by the Serious Accident Investigation team. The latest Serious Accident Investigation Guide, revised August, 2013, recommends that two reports be prepared. One, the Factual Report, would be made public, and the other, the Management Evaluation Report, would be kept confidential, intended for internal agency use only. The public report would not include any conclusions or recommendations. This would result in a public report that is much different from many of the reports we have seen in recent years.

UPDATE: we wrote more about these changes to the Serious Accident Investigation reports.