Good Situational Awareness (SA) is the first step in the decision-making process. This is based on observing and communicating what is seen, heard and felt. This allows the match of perception of the environment as closely as possible to the reality of the environment. This is a complicated process as humans tend to make decisions based on perception (observation + Communication + emotion) and not necessarily on reality. Good SA equals good perception and ultimately good decisions.
A common perception of fire managers and line officers is that unwanted large fires must be aggressively suppressed. Simply put...Fire = Danger. Any other course of action, its felt, will sail into a sea fraught with failure and promote a negative public reaction. Many feel it is important to be perceived by the public to be doing everything possible to deal with the unwanted, unplanned fire (danger). This is described in literature as the "Precautionary Principle."
An unwanted fire in the wrong place at the wrong time is truly a danger. Recognizing this, effective approaches to initial attack will continue to be used to suppress problematic fires. Ironically, the ability to successfully suppress the majority of the fires that occur, has allowed a drift into complacency in decision making by automatically engaging the suppression machine before mindful decisions about the effects of the fire are made.
Often, fire is perceived to be a danger simply because it triggers dramatic change and disrupts our lives. Therefore, it is easy to choose to "fight" the fire through the application of overwhelming mass. The language used reinforces this behavior. There is a battle to contain the wildfire that is "burning out of control" and "threatening" the forest. The reliance on abundance of aircraft and ground crews gives the impression it is possible to sail into safer waters, away from negative public perception, away from danger. The perception is as follows...more fire = more firefighters.
There is now a more broadly held understanding of the reality of fire: Fire is important and necessary. Almost all of the vegetation and ecosystems in the United States are fire adapted and/or fire evolved. Fire belongs here. Fire has always been and will always be a part of the landscape. Native Americans used fire regularly. European settlers brought a negative perception of fire which is still pervasive in this country. The longer fire is out of the equation, the greater the impact when it is included. That is reality. Fire is not always good, fire is not always bad. It just is. Like rain, too little or too much can be harmful.
What if fire was perceived as opportunity? What if this latest escaped fire was seen as an opportunity to finally allow fire on the landscape, to reset the ecological clock. This fire could allow for a more "fireproof" community which no longer had to worry every summer about evacuations. This fire could allow stronger bonds with neighbors and bring the community together.
Imagine if every fire was viewed as an opportunity to think carefully about when, where and how much risk the lives of our young men and women should be exposed to? Often the risk from the values to be protected (infrastructure, threat to an endangered species, historic cabin, etc) is transferred directly to the firefighters and into the cockpits of aircraft. What is truly a greater danger (risk); a closed highway or 100 firefighters and multiple aircraft working to keep the highway open?
This leads to a simple question when looking at a fire; is the danger real or perceived? Is aggressively suppressing the fire truly worth the risk?
"External Human Factors in Incident Management Team Decesion Making and Their Effect On Large Fire Suppression Expenditures," an article in the December edition of the Journal of Forestry, accurately depicts the decision dilemma: "Sociologist W.I. Thomas wrote, 'If men define things as real, they are real in their consequences' (as cited by McHugh 1968, p.7). Because perceptions are reality in a person's mind, decisions are made based on those perceptions. This means a tendency toward risk aversion and a shrinking pool of midlevel fire managers may continue, as will increased costs, unless the perception is changed."
Basing Strategy and Tactics on Recognizing Opportunity
Traditional wildland fire strategies start with an anchor point and then require an ever-increasing insertion of people and equipment until either a direct or indirect line is completed. This traditional strategy is based on Agency Administrators' and incident managers' perceptions of threats (dangers) and rarely considers the naturally pre-determined, and possibly inevitable, path of the fire.
Consider if a strategy was developed based on hot, dry and unstable weather, Type 1 crews and aviation resources being in short supply and recognition that the frightened public is reacting emotionally to their perceptions of the danger of fire and smoke? Consider whether this strategy would not transfer risk to firefighters? And, whether the strategy developed would not saddle the taxpayers with the financial burden of a multi-million dollar fire? What would that strategy look like?
Additionally, what if the strategy saw fire as an inevitable occurrence and the fire was managed with the view that considered the next fire as pre-determined and inevitable. This more enlightened strategy would recognize the role of fire in shaping vegetation and ecosystems, yielding a fire management strategy that considered all risks, opportunities and outcomes, rather than just "fighting" the fire or "battling" the flames.
A Large Fire Story
Initial attack of the Big Pine Fire was unsuccessful. The IMT was able to protect the nearby community but nine days later only 40 percent of the fire is contained and the remainder is in rough terrain. Rain is 4-6 weeks out. The fire is not going away anytime soon and a few Red Flag days could make the situation worse. The fire could make another run at the community if several factors line up. Six hundred firefighters are committed to the incident. The cost to date is $6 million and the daily cost rate is $900,000. Smoke is impacting the adjacent National Park. The Governor has called, twice. What is your perception; one of danger or one of opportunity?
Either way, now is the time to develop a clear and succinct strategy. Identify the values at risk. Identify the dangers and then look at the opportunities. There are a number of non-traditional strategies that offer opportunities.
Recognizing Opportunity
Flashing back to the Big Pine fire, why wait for the inevitable Red Flag conditions? Knowing that overwhelming mass is going to be ineffective in the rough terrain and knowing an alignment of conditions will create a negative outcome, then where are the opportunities? Where could and should the appropriate amount of force be applied? Where are the trigger points that can prevent the next run at town? Is the insertion of small mobile assets to significantly alter the undesireable scenario possible? Are there options that will check, direct and delay the fire with minimal firefighter exposure? Just because the flanks can be secured, will it make any difference to the community?
Because scientists and analysts have made great strides in technology and predictive services in the last few years, decision makers now have the abililty to identify windows of opportunity. Surgically applying burnout operations, securing a key piece of ground or expanding and contracting suppression resources, being in the right place at that right time, are now realistic approaches.
Traditional burnouts have an anchor point and a tie-in point. This common sense approach is safe and effective and has been used for decades. It works on the vast majority of fires. Some fires, especially the large, long-duration fires may warrant unanchored burnouts that target fuel reduction and fire behavior mitigation and not necessarily perimeter containment. These actions can mitigate fire and suppression impacts, ensure community protection and can be done under the most favorable conditions. This is in contrast to waiting on the fire while fuels become drier and the probability of experiencing Red Flag conditions is near 100 percent.
Choose the ground to hold very carefully. Remember size is less important than positive or negative impacts on the landscape. Place fire on the ground on fire management terms not on the fire's terms. Don't wait until the fire is at the edge of what is at risk; don't be reactive. Consider a well-planned night burnout.
Timing can limit costly and often unnecessary "line prep" by finding the right ground. If the land is under a different ownership, work with the landowner to achieve a reasonable objective - explain to the landowner the idea of opportunity. Large fires often cost more than $1 million/day. Find a way to explain your predicament to the landowner. It is, after all, their tax money. Do a cost analysis: Is "buying" the good ground more cost effective? Run it up the decision tree and see what happens.
Favorable fuels + good ground + Predictive Services = Opportunity
Heavy fuels + bad ground + reacting = Increased Firefighter Exposure
When developing a large fire strategy, plan for allowing the Incident Command System (ICS) to expand and contract as it was intended. Designate trigger points and Management Action Points (MAPs) that are designed to activate the necessary resources/actions at the right time and at the right place. For fire ground decision makers, it is important to view this one fire as a small component of a march larger puzzle: a puzzle that includes long-term ecological impacts, as well as short-term fears and perceptions, and is able to recognize and act upon opportunity.