Fire in the West - Western Forestry Leadership Coalition

Fire in the West, the Series
The first edition of Fire in the West was published in 1998. It was intended to
be a report to the Council of Western State Foresters on the status of wildland fires
in the West. For the first time, a person could find information on the authorities,
responsibilities and fire protection systems for each of the seventeen western state
forestry agencies as well as the numbers of fires and acres burned in the western
states.
In the spring of 2000, the Western State Fire Managers commissioned a special
study on the extent of the Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Problem in the West. The
third edition of Fire in the West was published in September of that year. This
report could not have been more timely, because that year the West burned and the
wildland/urban interface problem “smacked” us in the face.
The fourth in the series of Fire in the West documented the 2000 fire season.
In this edition the federal agency statistics were added, thus really presenting the full
impacts of fire in the West.
Fire in the West will never be a “best seller,” but it has become the document
of choice when you want to know something about the extent that wildland fires
play a key roles in the Western environment.
Additional Copies
Copies of Fire in the West can be purchased from Deer Valley Press. Write or
call Deer Valley Press, 5125 Deer Valley Road, Rescue, CA 95672 or telephone
(530) 676-7401. You can also find them on the “web” at www.deervalleypress.com.

TO: Council of Western State Foresters
FROM: Western State Fire Managers,
May 15, 2003
It is an honor to again provide the Council of Western
State Foresters with the most complete look at the extent and
complexity of the wildland fire protection in the West. In this,
the 5 th edition of Fire in the West, there is special focus on the
implementation of the National Fire Plan in the West and a
review of the disastrous 2002 fire season.
Some of the key points that will be highlighted and
supported with facts are:
• The number of fires and acres burned is on the increase.
• There will be bigger, more damaging and costlier fires.
• The National Fire Plan is providing much needed funding,
but it will not last forever, and most of the funds are not
being expended on long-term or permanent fixes to the
fuel buildup, the wildland/urban interface fire problem
and to forest health.
Your fire managers hope this edition of Fire in the West is
of value to you and they want to extend their thanks for the
continuing support you give them.
Sincerely,
Wayne F. Ching, Chair
Western State Fire Managers
1

Executive Summary
• Fire is an integral part of the natural environment in the West. In Fire Season 2002,
nearly 40,000 wildfires burned nearly seven million acres in the seventeen western states,
destroyed hundreds of structures, and killed 21 firefighters in the West.
• All levels of government – federal, state, and local – are either directly, or indirectly,
involved in mitigating the wildfire problem, especially in the wildland/urban interface.
Here, where human improvements are mixed with flammable natural vegetation, lives,
natural resources and property are threatened by increasingly severe wildfires.
• A variety of federal, state, and local government agencies (as well as forest protective
associations) provide wildland fire protection in the West. A variety of protection systems
are provided by the 17 western states, ranging from full-scale sophisticated wildland fire
departments to inadequate attempts to provide fire prevention education and interagency
coordination with staffing and funding. Most states are somewhere in between, with not
enough funding to do the job effectively. Funding mechanisms for the state forestry agencies
vary, with many of the rural states nearly totally dependent on State Fire Assistance
funds from the federal government. Local government fire departments rely primarily on
property taxes, benefit assessment fees, or in the rural all-volunteer fire departments,
donations. There are nearly 6,500 local government fire departments in the West. These
departments are frequently the initial attack force on many wildfires and the primary
source of resources for structure protection during major wildfires.
• The major federal wildland fire agencies have a variety of management goals that influence
decisions made during managing wildfires on the lands they control. State and local
fire protection agencies charged with the protection of small parcels in multiple ownerships
must be committed to immediate control and extinguishment (i.e. suppression) of
wildfires. As wildfires do not respect jurisdictional or property ownership boundaries,
there are times when administrative and operational conflicts can arise between agencies.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Wildland Fire Protection
Levels of Government (9)
Areas of Responsibility (10)
Protection Schemes (11)
Funding Sources and Levels (12)
Local Fire Departments (13)
Wildland/Urban Interface (14)
Roles and Responsibilities (17)
Suppression Policies (41)
Fire Environment (45)
National Fire Plan
Competitive Grants (68)
Communities at Risk (70)
Urban Watershed at Risk (80)
Healthy Forests Initiative (97)
Drought and Fire Season 2002
Drought and Forest Fires (101)
The 2002 Fire Season (105)
Safety and Stategy (114)
Why Fires Will Get Bigger (117)
Major Fires (121)
2002 Statistics (149)
Appendices
Wildland/Urban Interface (190)
Federal Land Ownership (195)
WUI Fire History (205)
• Interagency cooperation using the Incident Command System (ICS), Unified Command,
and Multi-Agency Coordinating System (MACS) are the key tools for successful
mitigation of major wildfire emergencies. Potential conflicts need to be addressed prior to
3

the fire with clear, comprehensive interagency agreements and operating plans. Joint
training, exercises, and command teams involving all fire agencies provide economy of
scale and assure jurisdictional agency input.
Many factors have been involved in
“creating” the unhealthy forest
condition in the West.
Homeowners must accept the
responsibility to provide protection
for their homes.
• Long-term drought, logging, the exclusion of fire, human development, and a variety of
other factors have created a situation where most western forests are overstocked, unhealthy,
and at greater risk of catastrophic wildfire than ever before. Wildfires now burn
more intensely, are more resistant to control, and cause greater damage, especially during
drought conditions. Extensive preparation and follow-up are necessary to effectively
reintroduce (prescribed) fire to the ecosystem to improve forest health or reduce fire
danger. These include large scale tree thinning, brush crushing, and control line construction,
followed by treatment of emergent undesirable species and planting of desirable
species. Air quality regulations and the threat of civil liability are also hindrances to expanded
use of prescribed fire to restore ecosystem health. To be of strategic value, most
fuel reduction projects need to be cooperative, involving multiple agencies and
landowners.
• The primary values at risk from wildfire, in order of priority, are: (1) human health and
safety; (2) critical watersheds/resources (urban water supply, community infrastructure,
community economic stability, communities themselves); and, (3) natural resources and
individual homes. An area of contention between all levels of government has been who is
responsible for protecting structures from encroaching wildfires There is only one correct
answer: everybody; federal, state, and local governments, property owners, and communities
(both urban and rural) all have an important stake in wildfire prevention and control.
Homeowners in the wildland have to accept the responsibility to use ignition-resistant
roofing and provide defensible space so that fire suppression forces have a greater chance
of success. Whole communities need to assume responsibility for improving their own
protection by providing fuelbreaks, adding fire defense improvements, and funding adequate
fire protection. Local governments need to adopt planning and development regulations
that will reduce the exposure of improvements in the wildland/urban interface to
wildfire and to provide an adequate level of fire protection. State governments need to take
the lead in providing an appropriate level of wildfire protection on non-federal lands,
especially in the wildland/urban interface. The federal agencies need to provide an adequate
level of protection on federal lands, especially those adjoining the wildland/urban
interface.
4

• The National Fire Plan (NFP) is a coordinated federal response to the devastating fire
season of 2000 that seeks to augment federal wildfire protection capability and provide
increased funding to state and local government agencies to reduce fire hazard and risk,
and to improve wildfire protection capabilities, especially in the wildland/urban interface
(WUI). The Healthy Forests Initiative attempts to more efficiently employ commercial and
non-commercial harvest methods that can reduce fire danger, improve forest health, and
contribute to local economic growth. FireWise helps communities organize for large-scale
hazard reduction projects in the wildland/urban interface. All seventeen western States
have received NFP funding for a wide variety of projects. The most popular types of
projects are public education,
fuelbreaks, and mechanical
thinning. Many of the projects
are cooperative, involving
multiple government agencies,
community groups, property
owners, public utilities, etc.
Communities-at-risk like Bend
(OR), Spokane (WA), Flagstaff
(AZ), and Oakhurst (CA)
have leveraged federal grant
money with private grants,
cooperate sponsorships, and
volunteer peoplepower to
achieve a common end.
• There is a need for a collaborative
process for identifying
and prioritizing communities-at-risk
and a standard
methodology for assessing risk
of communities in order to
achieve maximum benefit
from limited resources available
under the National Fire
Plan. Flagstaff, AZ is probably
National Fire Plan Funding, by State
Base Funding (Formula)
State Fire Assistance
5
Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2002
The National Fire Plan is the federal
response to Fire Season 2000.
Alaska $335,609 3.4% $895,391 3.9% $283,657 5.1% $96,628 1.2% $1,611,285 3.5%
Arizona* $897,000 9.1% $2,221,500 9.7% $376,000 6.8% $455,750 5.7% $3,950,250 8.6%
California* $1,000,210 10.1% $937,770 4.1% $954,072 17.3% $662,000 8.3% $3,554,052 7.7%
Colorado* $994,304 10.1% $3,630,435 15.9% $669,643 12.2% $544,000 6.9% $5,838,382 12.7%
Hawaii* $380,651 3.9% $115,480 0.5% $200,599 3.6% $15,000 0.2% $711,730 1.5%
Idaho* $486,800 4.9% $3,530,700 15.5% $184,400 3.3% $935,575 11.8% $5,137,475 11.1%
Kansas $495,000 5.0% $60,000 0.3% $181,000 3.3% $33,537 0.4% $769,537 1.7%
Montana* $603,700 6.1% $1,140,067 5.0% $378,713 6.9% $854,030 10.8% $2,976,510 6.5%
Nebraska* $467,100 4.7% $28,000 0.1% $143,000 2.6% $101,416 1.3% $739,516 1.6%
Nevada* $307,000 3.1% $1,999,936 8.8% $157,681 2.9% $873,928 11.0% $3,338,545 7.2%
New Mexico $72,500 0.7% $2,110,500 9.3% $193,300 3.5% $484,517 6.1% $2,860,817 6.2%
North Dakota* $195,500 2.0% $0 0.0% $407,900 7.4% $228,597 2.9% $831,997 1.8%
Oregon $1,041,395 10.6% $2,953,209 12.9% $416,390 7.6% $816,939 10.3% $5,227,933 11.3%
South Dakota* $584,100 5.9% $346,000 1.5% $197,000 3.6% $222,000 2.8% $1,349,100 2.9%
Utah* $381,134 3.9% $427,000 1.9% $229,229 4.2% $760,000 9.6% $1,797,363 3.9%
Washington $383,395 3.9% $1,490,000 6.5% $384,221 7.0% $385,226 4.9% $2,642,842 5.7%
Wyoming* $463,000 4.7% $846,602 3.7% $151,300 2.7% $466,456 5.9% $1,927,358 4.2%
Other(1) $766,300 $80,000 0.4% $0 $0 $846,300
Total $9,854,698 $22,812,590 $5,508,105 $7,935,599 $46,110,992
$32,667,288
Competitive Grants
Volunteer Fire Assistance Rural Fire Assistance TOTAL (2)
National Total $51,727,402
$10,419,113 $9,942,744 $72,089,259
Source: FY 2002 Performance Report - National Fire Plan, January 2003; * individual state records; (1) Guam and American Samoa, CNMI and other Pacific
Islands; (2) Not all of these funds are administered by the State Forester.

The damages to watersheds impact
urban areas miles from the fire.
Major fires were the result of
decadent forest health and drought.
a model community for the combined issues of forest health and fire hazard reduction in
the wildland/urban interface. Here overstocked, decadent pine forests surround a thriving
city with normal high fire danger exacerbated by continuing drought. A strong coalition of
government agencies, corporate sponsors, and community associations is making excellent
progress in its attempt to restore forest health and reduce fire hazard in the metropolitan
area.
• One of the most important values at risk from wildfire, urban watershed, was highlighted
in 2002 when the Hayman Fire burned much of the Denver watershed on the South Platte
River. Many millions of dollars must be invested to reduce erosion and siltation and to
protect the municipal water system from potential damage. A severe storm and flood could
incapacitate the water system for millions of people. The same potential exists in hundreds
of western communities. Everybody benefits from watershed fire protection or suffers from
lack of it.
• Fire Season 2002 was busy, intense, and difficult throughout the West, and punctuated by
record-sized fires in Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon. Major fires were the result of decadent
forest health and
drought. Despite the severity
of the fire season and the
scope of damages, there were
some success stories. Often
crown fires were controlled
when they reached a completed
thinning projects,
proving the effectiveness of
the concept of fuel reduction;
much of the NFP project
work is targeted at wildland/
urban interface communities
that are at greatest risk from
wildfire; and cooperative
efforts improved the level of
fire protection in many areas.
6

• Firefighter safety should continue to be emphasized, but not to the extent of employing
avoidance strategies. Fire Order #1: “Fight fire aggressively, but provide for safety first”
needs to be reemphasized.
• Fires will continue to get
bigger, costlier, and more
damaging due to existing
and worsening weather and
fuel conditions, wildland/
urban interface spread,
inadequate pre-suppression,
failed suppression actions,
strategic and tactical limitations,
legal constraints,
philosophical differences,
and human factors.
• Fire Season 2003 and
years ahead, may be as bad
or worse, depending on variable weather conditions, especially if, as is predicted, the
drought continues in the West. Structure loss will continue to be high, as the wildland/
urban interface continues to expand.
Wildland fires in the West will get
bigger, costlier and be more
damaging.
Structure loss will continue to be
high!
7

Acknowledgments
Western State Fire Managers
Joe Stam, AK
David Behrens, AZ
Jim Wright, CA
Rich Homann, CO
Wayne Ching, HI
Brian Shiplett, ID
Casey McCoy, KS
Tim Murphy, MT
Don Westover, NE
Bob Ashworth, NV
Frank Smith, NM
Mike Santucci, ND
Bill Lafferty, OR
Steve Hasenohrl, SD
David Dalrymple, UT
Skip Simmons, WA
Ray Weidenhaft, WY
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Western State Fire Managers;
without their help this report would not be possible. We would also like to thank the following
individuals who graciously contributed their time, knowledge and experience to this report:
Arizona:
Kevin Boness and Russ Shumate, ASLD Fire Management Division
Ken Butler and George Leech, BIA Ft. Apache Agency
Brian Cottam, Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership
Colorado:
Jim Hubbard and Chuck Dennis, Colorado State Forest Service
Idaho:
Mike Tennery, Idaho Department of Lands
Larry Isenberg and Lori Barnes, FireSmart Kootenai County
Roberta Black, Kootenai County Local Emergency Planning Committee
Peggy Polichio, Idaho Department of Lands and Idaho National Forest
Montana:
Paula Rosenthal, Montana Department of Natural Resources Conservation
Sherry Devlin, the Missoulian.
Oregon:
Dan Thorpe, Oregon Department of Forestry
Chief Bret Fillis, Applegate Valley Rural Fire Protection District No. 9
Greg Chandler and Brian Keating, BLM Medford District.
Council of Western State Foresters
Jeff Jahnke, Liaison with the Western State Foresters
Jim Lawrence, Western Forestry Coordination Center
8

Introduction
Before we begin discussing the National Fire Plan and the extent of the 2002 fire season,
we need to present some background on the fire problem in the West and how each of the
wildland firefighting agencies is organized.
Fire in the West was first published to document the extent and nature of wildfire in the
Western United States. It for the first time documented the numbers of fires, by size class and
type, for the 17 western states. It also described the authorities and responsibilities of each of
the state forestry organizations. The first edition of Fire in the West was published in 1998, and
within it there was also the first attempt to define levels of wildland fire protection.
Fire in the West is a report to the
Council of Western State Foresters
on the status of fire in the West.
Wildland Fire Protection in the West
Fire is an integral part of the natural environment of the Western United States. Each year
thousands of fires damage or destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of grass, brush, and timber.
More and more frequently, structures are destroyed and lives put at risk by wildfire throughout
the West. Fire respects no governmental boundaries, so it crosses them regularly. The following
definitions will give the reader a basic understanding of the complications involved with wildland
fire protection.
Fire is an important part of the natural
environment.
Levels of Government
In the United States, there are three basic levels of government: local, state and federal.
Each level of government has different authorities and responsibilities.
• Local government is defined as incorporated cities, counties, boroughs, or special districts.
There are thousands of local entities in the West, most of which have their own fire authority
or agency. The protection of life and property is the primary function of a local government
fire department. The vast majority of local fire agencies are not adequately trained or
equipped to fight wildland fires.
9

• State governments address the wildfire issue in varying ways. Several states have adopted
laws that direct the State Forester to provide wildland fire protection and provide funding,
personnel, and equipment to deliver services. Other states give the responsibility of providing
wildland fire protection to the State Forester, but do not provide funding for such protection.
Only Nevada has given it’s State Forester the responsibility to provide protection to the same
level as traditional local government fire departments. In most states, there may be more than
one state agency that has some role to play in wildland fire protection. There are the State
Forester, the State Emergency Services agency, the National Guard, and the State Fire Marshal,
to name a few.
Sharing protection responsibilities
between agencies is common.
• Federal land management agencies provide differing levels of wildland fire protection depending
on their authorities and responsibilities. The levels of fire protection provided by the
USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management differ from that provided
by the USDI National Park Service, simply because their missions are different.
In some cases, the various authorities and responsibilities between federal, state and local
agencies may be overlapping and in conflict. This can lead to confusion and frustration. The
wildland fire protection problem is further compounded by the fact that these types of fires
know no boundaries.
Areas of Responsibility
There are many different areas of responsibility. The area of responsibility for a city or
special district is easily defined; it is the area within the city limits or district. The area of
responsibility for a federal agency is the land they administer. The area of responsibility for a
State is usually most complex. This area, called state responsibility area, is defined in a piece
of legislation that places “qualifiers” on the land. It may be land owned by the State, or all
forested lands within the State that are not within an incorporated city or owned by the federal
government, or all privately owned forested lands.
A direct protection area is that area of the State where State forces provide direct fire
protection. The direct protection area usually includes state responsibility area, but it also may
include lands of another agency that it protects under the authority of a cooperative agreement.
The best example of this type of protection is when a state protects federal lands that are adjacent
to state protected lands, or when the Forest Service protects private lands within the national
forest.
10

A local protection area is an area where the State has not
declared it has a direct responsibility. This may be nonforested
areas within a city or fire district. The primary fire
protection responsibility in these areas lies with a local governmental
entity, or there may be no protection at all.
Protection Schemes (State Forestry Agencies)
To fully understand the extent of the wildland fire protection
in the West, there has to be a discussion of the various
types of protection provided by the States. As mentioned, there
is a vast difference in the authorities, responsibilities, and the
levels of protection provided (Figure 1). There are three general
types of wildland fire protection provided by the States:
• Direct Protection – A State is providing direct protection
when it provides funding for personnel and equipment to
protect it’s state responsibility area. There is a command
authority and direct employment of firefighting personnel
designated to provide protection. Examples: Alaska, California,
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
Area Protected (in acres)
Direct Cooperative Coordination Total
Alaska 151,695,898 151,695,898
Arizona 22,200,000 22,200,000
California 31,174,492 11,000,000 42,174,492
Colorado 25,958,109 15,474,870 41,432,979
Hawaii 850,000 3,306,300 4,156,300
Idaho 6,025,690 6,025,690
Kansas 46,400,000 46,400,000
Montana 5,164,927 45,309,480 50,474,407
Nebraska 49,083,520 49,083,520
Nevada 11,999,791 20,919,540 32,919,331
New Mexico 42,500,000 42,500,000
North Dakota 31,878,661 31,878,661
Oregon 11,300,000 2,300,000 13,600,000
South Dakota 949,117 47,000,000 47,949,117
Utah 15,000,000 15,000,000
Washington 12,637,000 12,637,000
Wyoming 4,237,000 24,863,000 29,100,000
• Cooperative Protection – A state is providing cooperative
protection when it provides funding for the protection of it’s
state responsibility area, but provides the protection using
other agencies’ forces under a cooperative agreement. There
is a command authority and limited firefighting forces, but
the primary firefighting forces are another agency’s employees.
Examples: Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.
• Coordinated Protection – A State is providing coordinated
protection when it does not have funding to provide suppression activities, but provides coordination of
wildland fire prevention activities and suppression efforts throughout the State. Fire protection of
privately owned lands is the responsibility of local agencies. Examples: North Dakota, Kansas, and
Nebraska.
11
261,992,024 138,309,480 238,925,891 639,227,395
Figure 1. Each State defines its responsibility differently. If the State establishes
a direct protection area and provides funding and resources to protect it, this is
direct protection. Other States may take the responsibility to assist in protection,
but use forces from other agencies to protect the area...this is considered
cooperative protection. The third type of protection is coordinated protection.
This is when the State has given the State Forester broad responsibilities, but
limited funding to provide the protection.

The States use various sources to
fund fire protection.
There may be hybrids of these three types of protection. An example is Montana. They
provide direct protection to 5 million acres of privately or State owned lands, but they also
provide cooperative protection on 45 million acres of non-forested private lands in the eastern
part of the State.
Funding Sources and Levels of Protection
The States use various sources to fund fire protection (Figure 2). Some use general fund
revenues, others use fees collected specifically for wildland fire protection. California is unique
in that it contracts with local entities to provide municipal type fire protection services, but can
use these forces to supplement it’s wildland fire protection operations. Nevada is unique also in
that they have the responsibility to provide full service fire protection in specific areas, just as
any municipal fire department would.
The federal government also provides State and
local entities with funds. There are two USDA
Forest Service grant programs, State Fire Assistance
(previously know as the Rural Fire Prevention and
Control Program) used to fund certain State fire
programs, and Volunteer Fire Assistance (previously
know as the Rural Community Fire Protection
Program) used to fund rural fire protection programs.
Volunteer Fire Assistance and State Fire
Assistance are matching grant programs administered
by the various State Foresters. There is also a
new USDI grant program, Rural Fire Assistance,
that is available.
Figure 2. Wildland fire protection can be very complicated. There may be areas where the protection
responsibilities overlap and may even be in conflict. Local authority is usually the simplest. State
responsibilities differ with each State and usually overlay local government. Federal protection
responsibilities differ between the agencies, and the federal government provides some funding to the
States and volunteer organizations in the West.
Funding Levels
The funding of the various State forestry organizations
varies as widely as their authorities. California
has by far the largest program. The millions
they are budgeted covers the cost of one of the
largest fire protection programs in the world.
12

Federal funding is a significant source of funding for several States. The loss of this
money to the States would jeopardize their programs. Each year the Western States receive
several million dollars under the State Fire Assistance
program. Also, the federal government funds a limited
number of volunteer fire operations.
Local Government Fire Departments
Every State forestry organization attempts to maintain
good working relationships with the fire departments
within their State. The number of fire departments varies
greatly in the West. Hawaii has only seven to deal with
where California has over 900 fire departments in the
State. There are over 6,000 local fire departments in the
Western States (Figure 3). The actual number of fire
departments is actually decreasing, due to consolidations.
Several States rely totally on local departments to
suppress wildland fires within the State. In the remaining
States, the local fire departments are used for initial attack,
and when the situation becomes critical the fire departments
are called upon to provide depth to the fire attack.
Local fire departments often play a major role in
protecting structures that are being threatened by a wildland/urban
interface fire. None of the western States can
adequately deal with a wildland/urban interface fire situation
without the assistance of local fire departments and
the cooperation of the Federal land management agencies.
In some parts of the West, rural fire departments are not
supported by taxing authorities.
Number of Local
Fire Departments
Alaska 288
Arizona 252
California 927
Colorado 398
Hawaii 7
Idaho 170
Kansas 673
Montana 412
Nebraska 490
Nevada 211
New Mexico 359
North Dakota 396
Oregon 438
South Dakota 364
Utah 230
Washington 560
Wyoming 235
6,410
Figure 3. Local fire departments play a
vital role in the protection of each state’s
wildland resources. They especially come
into play for structure protection during a
wildland/urban interface fire.
Local fire departments are key
resources for initial attack and
structure protection.
13

The Wildland/Urban Interface
The wildland/urban interface fire
problem is not just a problem in
California...it is a problem in the West.
The wildland/urban interface fire problem has existed for hundreds of years. As early as
1793 the Governor of Upper and Lower California issued a proclamation that “prohibited all
kinds of burning, not only in the vicinity of towns, …which cause some
detriment…”. In the last 50 years the problem has become more complex
as the population has grown and more development has moved
into the wildlands. Starting with the Bel Air Fire in 1961,
California became a focal point for this new fire problem,
where forest or brush fires moved into, and
sometimes through, residential subdivisions,
destroying large numbers of homes. In the last 20
years of the Twentieth Century, the wildland/urban
interface fire problem began to appear in such
geographically diverse areas as central Florida,
eastern Washington, central Colorado, and even
Long Island, New York. Now, each fire season
seems to produce several major wildfires somewhere
in the United States, and especially in the
West, that destroy large numbers of homes or
other buildings.
Definitions
The wildland/urban interface is any area where humans and their developments meet or
are intermixed with wildland fuels. These locations can be as different as the pine forests of
Flagstaff, the brush fields of San Bernardino, the palmetto thickets of Orlando, or the maple
forests of Boston. Anywhere that buildings are erected in the woods, sooner or later, wildfire
will be a threat to those buildings.
In recent years, fire professionals have developed standardized terminology to describe
four different wildland/urban interface conditions: Interface, Intermix, Occluded, and Rural
(See Appendix for complete definitions). These common descriptors allow for interchange of
data and ideas among fire professionals from different regions on how to mitigate this growing
wildland/urban interface fire problem.
14

Responsibilities
Historically, protecting structures (especially houses) from fire has
been a function of local government, either through volunteer fire
departments in small towns, or full-time paid firefighters in large
cities. In the post WWII period of expansion of wildland fire
protection in the US, wildland firefighting became a separate
distinct specialty fire profession. After all, fighting fire in
the forest was very different than fighting a fire in a
house. Thus, municipal firefighters learned how to fight
house fires and wildland firefighters learned how to
fight wildfires, and seldom did the two meet.
Wildfires destroy homes every year.
As the houses spread into the wildlands,
however, conflicts arose over whose responsibility it was (both physically
and financially) to protect structures from encroaching wildfires.
The federal wildland fire agencies did not want to bear the rapidly
increasing costs of structure protection in the wildland/urban interface,
and local government did not want to have to bear the costs of saving
houses from fires managed, and sometimes created, by the feds. Neither
side wanted to absorb the cost of the specialized training and
equipment necessary to allow their firefighters to fight the other kind
of fire. State wildfire agencies were frequently caught in the middle,
trying to broker deals for enough structural fire resources to save a
community with no assurance if and by whom these resource would be
paid. Frequently Federal Emergency Management Agency funds have been
used to pay the cost of trying to save a house from a wildfire as well as the
cost of rebuilding the house when that effort failed.
As the wildland/urban interface fire problem continues to spread, fire
professionals from all agencies have found it necessary to better prepare to
jointly participate in the protection of structures and communities from wildfires.
Federal wildland fire management teams have learned to call upon
municipal fire officers for the expertise and resources needed to prepare and
execute effective structure protection plans during major wildfires. In some
15

states, interagency agreements have decided in advance who will have not only the physical
responsibility for structure protection, but also the financial responsibility.
Adequate clearance is key!
Solutions
The key to successful fire operations in the wildland/urban interface is for all jurisdictional
agencies to agree in advance to their specific roles and levels of financial commitment in
the event of a wildfire. The most promising solutions to the wildland/urban interface fire problem
in the West are coming from communities where federal, state, and local government fire
agencies have banded together with community associations, local business, and service organizations
to educate homeowners about the issue, sponsor projects to reduce fire hazards in the
interface, and preplan a joint response to wildfires.
The FireWise project has provided hundreds of
community leaders the tools to undertake wildfire
mitigation projects. State forestry agencies are using
grant funding from a variety of sources to educate
individual property owners on the importance of
creating and maintaining defensible space around
their homes, and to underwrite local community
efforts in fire hazard reduction, especially the creation
of community fuelbreaks and thinning of
forests in and near communities.
The wildland/urban interface fire problem is
widespread and complex, and the local solutions
will be successful only when all of the parties
assume their fair share of the responsibility.
16

Roles and Responsibilities
Fire is part of the West. It is a good friend when used properly. It is an enemy when it kills,
destroys property, watersheds, soils and livelihoods. Each of the states have developed fire
protection systems that match their need. Each of the wildland fire agencies in the West has
different roles and responsibilities, as determined by legislation and administrative regulations
at both the federal and state levels.
Federal Wildland Agencies
The five federal land management agencies have different missions for stewardship of
the public lands under their jurisdiction, some aspects of which may hinder traditional fire
control methods or treat fire differently than adjacent/affected neighbors. These agencies and
their fire missions are:
• USDA Forest Service (FS): Administers National Forest System Lands with objectives
ranging from intensive specific uses (e.g. recreation, timber production) to wilderness
preservation, to protection of rare and endangered species. Fire is sometimes
viewed as a management tool to help meet planned resource management objectives.
Personnel are trained as wildland (not structural) firefighters and an extensive fire
protection infrastructure exists in the West.
The federal wildland agencies
administer over 650 million acres in
the West.
• USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Administers public domain lands,
which in many cases in the West are lands unsuitable for growing commercial timber
and are grass, sage, and brush-covered rangelands used historically primarily for livestock
grazing. Land use objectives range from intensive special use (e.g. mining, oil
production, recreation) to protection of endangered species. Fire is viewed as a management
tool to help meet preplanned natural resource objectives. Personnel are trained as
wildland (not structural) firefighters and a significant fire protection infrastructure exists
in geographically separated areas of significant landholdings. Much BLM land receives
primary wildland fire protection from state or local government fire agencies due to its
being scattered, small parcels.
• USDI National Park Service (NPS): Administers national parks, monuments, and
recreation areas with a primary mission of preservation of natural resources or historic
artifacts. Fire is viewed as a natural part of the ecosystem and human intervention is
17

discouraged, except to protect lives and valuable improvements on the land. Because it often
has “exclusive jurisdiction”, most NPS firefighters are trained and properly equipped to
provide both wildland and structural fire protection services, as well as emergency medical
care. Its fire protection infrastructure varies with the size and public use of the specific
location and is widely scattered.
The federal wildland agencies are not
responsible for the protection of
structures.
• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Administers National Wildlife Refuges with a
primary mission to protect habitat for wildlife. Fire is seen as a habitat management tool in
some ecosystems, but because of the small size of most refuges, wildfire from outside
sources can be a significant threat to the whole refuge and is aggressively controlled. With
the exception of a few very large refuges, the FWS has few trained wildland fire personnel
and a minimal amount of fire protection equipment, relying for most fire protection on
neighboring state or local government fire agencies.
Federal Land Ownership Data
Forest Service
Bur of Land
Management
Bur of Indian
Affairs
Fish and
Wildlife
Service
• USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Administers Indian Reservations with the primary
goal of protecting and providing resources that contribute to the social and economic
well being of numerous tribes of Native Americans. Fire is used as a management tool to
meet specific planned resource management objectives and wildfire is controlled as a public
Areas, in acres.
National
Park Service
Dept of
Defense
18
Other
Federal
TOTAL
Alaska 22,004,745 86,908,060 1,140,410 76,321,037 52,891,681 1,677,718 22,851 240,966,502
Arizona 11,250,693 14,252,778 20,718,207 1,716,858 2,629,633 1,219,717 2,751 51,790,637
California 20,627,691 14,556,074 191,020 323,642 4,615,013 1,753,493 434,695 42,501,628
Colorado 14,501,592 8,296,512 32,835 81,574 574,689 415,473 358,175 24,260,850
Hawaii 1 0 0 288,511 220,410 127,734 1,627 638,283
Idaho 20,442,651 11,847,328 55,700 76,068 86,866 14,402 1,067,840 33,590,855
Kansas 108,175 0 40,234 58,332 698 143,447 97,088 447,974
Montana 16,872,610 8,060,382 1,074,907 1,153,013 1,221,314 2,540 316,204 28,700,970
Nebraska 352,133 6,580 66,469 172,360 5,863 18,703 119,139 741,247
Nevada 5,815,856 47,844,391 1,233,000 2,318,069 165,500 484,965 1,699,739 59,561,520
New Mexico 9,326,599 12,770,569 8,349,148 384,251 371,827 3,180,226 453,865 34,836,485
North Dakota 1,105,779 59,717 866,896 487,654 71,640 2,112 1,273,320 3,867,118
Oregon 15,664,078 16,223,739 796,588 557,479 194,859 31,072 133,625 33,601,440
South Dakota 2,013,628 279,869 5,002,056 198,086 263,629 890 60,455 7,818,613
Utah 8,112,462 22,877,713 2,331,094 419,169 2,015,426 939,973 660,613 37,356,450
Washington 9,174,956 370,110 2,602,254 186,369 1,932,401 433,251 752,979 15,452,320
Wyoming 9,258,281 18,383,926 1,889,532 86,486 2,393,198 9,512 815,841 32,836,776
TOTAL 166,631,930 262,737,748 46,390,350 84,828,958 69,654,647 10,455,228 8,270,807 648,969,668
nuisance. Only the largest reservations
have trained fire personnel and fire
protection equipment. Many small
reservations receive primary fire protection
from state or local government fire
agencies. A recent development is the
increased economic vigor of those tribes
that have developed casinos, which
provide enough revenue that several
tribal governments have developed their
own independent fire departments.
The roles and responsibilities of the
wildland fire (state forestry) agencies in
each of the 17 western states are outlined
in the next section of this report.

State Forestry Agency
Responsibilities and Protection Systems
19

Alaska Division of Forestry - The Alaska Division of Forestry is a
division within the Department of Natural Resources.
Responsibility
The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources is charged with ...the protection
of forested land in the State from fire and other destructive agents …commensurate with
the value of the resources at risk, for the natural resources and watersheds on land that is
owned privately, by the State, or by a municipality.
The Commissioner has directed that...the Division of Forestry will provide for the protection
of the natural surface resources, man-made improvements and human life from the threat
of wildland fire for all lands under State and private ownership, with the exception of: (A.)
Private land protected by the Federal government as enacted by law; (B.) Any land within a
borough or municipality whose organized fire department has accepted protection responsibility.
Protection System
The Alaska Division of Forestry is responsible for the protection of 151.7 million acres.
The USDI, Bureau of Land Management through it’s Alaska Fire Service, protects 192 million
acres and the USDA, Forest Service protects the 26 million acres of federal lands within the
national forests.
The Division employs 22 full-time employees and hires over 160 temporary or seasonal
firefighters. During the peak fire season period, the Division staffs 37 engine companies and
operates or contracts for 2 airtankers, 2 air attacks, 4 fixed wing aircraft, and 7 helicopters.
In an effort to improve efficiency and effectiveness, the Division of Forestry entered into a
cooperative agreement with the USDI, Bureau of Land Management to divide the State into two
direct protection areas. The Bureau provides wildland fire protection to all of the federal, state,
and private lands in the north part of the State and the Division provides protection in the south.
The Forest Service continues to protect their own land.
20

State statutes provide that cities and boroughs may provide structural fire protection within
their jurisdiction or within specifically formed service areas. Even though the Division’s area of
responsibility overlaps with local jurisdictional areas, the protection services provided by both
governmental entities do not normally conflict with each other except when a wildland fire (the
State’s responsibility) threatens a structure (the local jurisdiction’s responsibility).
To enhance the wildland fire protection within the Division’s direct protection area, they
have entered into cooperative fire protection agreements with 56 city and borough fire agencies.
The main purpose of these agreements is to provide assistance to the Division when a fire
occurs in the area or to provide protection during the “non-fire season” periods when the Division
does not staff it’s fire equipment. There are 288 organized fire departments in the State.
Fire Activity
Alaska averages just over 300 wildland fires and burns just under 227,000 acres a year.
The annual acreage burned varies significantly from 16,585 acres in 1995 to over a million
acres in 1997. Debris burning is the single most frequent cause at 33 percent, with miscellaneous
as the second highest causal rate at 24 percent. An average of 91 percent of fires were
contained at under 10 acres with an average fire size of 0.51 acres. The average size of fires
over 10 acres was 7,058 acres. Alaska is unique in it’s size in that it constitutes over 25 percent
of the total acres in all of the 17 Western States.
During Fire Season 2002, Alaska had 399 fires that burned 802,515 acres, well above the
10-year average for both numbers and acres.
21

Arizona Fire Management Division - The Arizona Fire Management
Division is a division of the Arizona State Land Department.
Responsibility
The State of Arizona has declared ...The State Forester shall have the authority to prevent
and suppress any wildfires on State and private lands located outside incorporated municipalities
and, if subject to cooperative agreements, on other lands located in this State or in other
States, Mexico and Canada (Arizona revised Statute 37-623). The Division has the responsibility
to protect 22,447,000 acres of the State.
Protection System
The Arizona Fire Management Division maintains Cooperative Intergovernmental Agreements
or Joint Powers Agreements with various local, state and federal agencies for the response
of over 1,000 engine companies to suppress fires under the State’s jurisdiction. There are
approximately 250 organized fire departments in the State.
Fire Activity
Arizona averages just over 450 wildland fires and burns about 14,000 acres a year. The ten
year statistics show that the number of fires have declined over the last ten years. In 1995, they
had 796 fires, whereas in 1998, they had about a 50 percent reduction to 396 fires. The annual
acreage burned varies from 3,057 acres in 1997 to 630,075 acres in 1995. Miscellaneous is the
single most frequent cause at 51 percent of fires, with lightning as the second highest causal rate
at 16 percent. An average of 83 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average
size of 1.1 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was just under 439 acres.
In Fire Season 2002, Arizona had 530 fires that burned 46,645 acres, well above the 5-year
average. Lightning fires were about average and “miscellaneous” continued to be the leading
fire cause. The Rodeo-Chediski Fire (468,638 acres) which started on the BIA’s Fort Apache
Agency, was the largest fire in Arizona’s recorded history.
22

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - The
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is part of the State’s Resources
Agency.
Responsibility
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) is required to protect
State and privately owned watershed lands as designated by the State’s Board of Forestry. The
law defines watershed lands as...lands covered wholly or in part by forests or by trees producing
or capable of producing forest products. Lands covered wholly or in part by timber, brush,
undergrowth, or grass, whether of commercial value or not, which protect the soil from excessive
erosion, retard runoff of water or accelerate water percolation... Lands in areas which are
principally used or useful for range or forage purposes, which are contiguous to the lands
described (above) (PRC 4126). The following lands are excluded from State protection...Lands
owned or controlled by the federal government or any agency of the federal government. Lands
within the exterior boundaries of any city...(PRC 4127). Roughly one-third of the State is
classed as “state responsibility area,” or about 31.3 million acres.
The Department directly protects about 27.7 million acres. Some of this acreage includes
land managed by the USDA Forest Service, and the USDI Bureau of Land Management. The
“state responsibility area” that is not protected by CDF is either protected by various federal
agencies or several local fire agencies know as “contract counties.”
The Department has the authority via cooperative agreements, to provide full-service fire
protection to cities, counties, and fire districts. Such contracts add an additional 11 million acres
to CDF’s direct protection responsibilities.
Protection System
The Department fields a force of close to 17,000 firefighters (3,800 full-time fire professionals,
foresters, and administrative personnel; 1,400 seasonal firefighters; 5,500 local agency
volunteers under CDF control; 2,600 State Volunteers in Prevention; and over 3,800 inmate and
ward firefighters). This force of firefighters operate 1,025 engine companies (336 funded by the
23

State, and 689 locally funded and controlled by CDF), 21 airtankers, 10 helicopters, 13 air
attack aircraft, 58 initial attack bulldozer companies, and 195 Type 1 fire crews.
Fire Activity
California averages just about 6,000 wildland fires and burns about 128,000 acres a year.
The five year statistics show that the number of fires in California are fairly consistent from
year-to-year.. The annual acreage burned varies from 57,788 acres in 1997 to 277,750 acres in
1999. Equipment use is the single most frequent cause at 37 percent, with miscellaneous as the
second highest causal rate at 33 percent. An average of 95 percent of fires are contained at
under 10 acres with an average size of 0.47 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was
1,250 acres. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection responds to over
290,000 calls for help each year with the vast majority of these calls (51 percent) being for
medical assistance.
In Fire Season 2002, California had 5,759 wildfires that burned 112,810 acres, slightly
below the 5-year average. That total included five Class G fires, which averaged about 16,000
acres.
The worst fires in California in 2002 were the McNally Fire (150,696 acres) on the Sequoia
National Forest and the Pines Fire (61,690 acres) in the CDF’s San Diego Unit.
24

Colorado State Forest Service - The Colorado State Forest Service is
a State agency within the Colorado State University System
Responsibility
State of Colorado statutes declare ...It is State policy of this State to prevent and control
forest fires on or threatening the forest land of the State (public or private) in order to preserve
forest and other natural resources....and prevent loss of life and damage to property from
wildfires and other conflagrations (23-30-301). The actual fire suppression action is provided
by over 400 fire protection districts, rural fire departments, and sheriff departments.
The responsibility for the suppression of wildland fires is assigned to the Sheriff of each
Colorado County. The Sheriff ... in case of any forest or prairie fire, is to assume charge thereof
or to assist other governmental authorities in such emergencies for controlling or extinguishing
such fires...The State forester may assume the duty with concurrence of the Sheriff (30-10-513).
Protection System
The Colorado State Forest Service protects cooperatively with the County Sheriffs approximately
41 million acres of the State. Initial calls go directly to the Sheriff’s Office or an
interagency dispatch center. The Colorado State Forest Service may respond with a line officer
and may assume control upon mutual agreement of the County Sheriff and the State Forester.
The Colorado State Forest Service provides 140 federal excess property engines to local
fire departments and county sheriffs for use in fighting wildland fires. In addition, 16 stateowned
engines are available and over 1720 fire department engines are listed on resource
forms. The state maintains cooperative agreements with various federal wildland fire agencies,
county sheriff departments, and fire departments. The State also maintains a seasonal contract
for single engine airtanker(s) that can be used by local firefighters.
Fire Activity
Colorado averages just over 2,300 wildland fires that burn just under 82,000 acres a year
on State and private land. The five-year statistics show that the number of fires in Colorado has
25

increased since 1999. The annual acreage burned varies significantly from 10,282 acres in 1998
to over 244,000 in 2002. The single most frequent cause of fires reported falls within the
miscellaneous category at 52 percent, with debris burning as the second highest causal rate at 17
percent. Containment is reached on average at fewer than 10 acres on 93 percent of the fires,
with 0.61 acres being the average size of fires in this category. Fires that grow beyond 10 acres
reach an average size of 627 acres.
In Fire Season 2002, Colorado had 3,409 wildfires that burned a total of 244,252 acres,
well above the 5-year average. The two largest fires burned a total of over 207,000 acres. There
were significantly more lightning fires than normal.
The Hayman Fire (137,760 acres) which started on the Pike National Forest in June 2002
is the largest fire in Colorado’s recorded history.
26

Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife - The Hawaii Division of
Forestry and Wildlife is one of nine divisions within the Department of Land and
Natural Resources.
Responsibility
The Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife is responsible to...provide direct fire protection
to forest reserves, natural area reserves, public hunting areas, wildlife and plant sanctuaries
and other lands under the jurisdiction of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. This encompasses
approximately 850,000 acres. The Division has a secondary protection responsibility on
3.3 million acres of other state-owned lands.
Protection System
Cooperative agreements are maintained with four local government fire agencies, one on
each of the islands (Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii). These resources are the first responders
and are relied upon for direct fire suppression activities. Cooperative agreements also exist
between the U.S. Army Support Command Hawaii, the National Park Service, the Pacific
Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai and the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii.
Fire Activity
Hawaii averages just over 150 wildland fires and burns about 12,000 acres a year. The ten
year statistics show that the number of fires in Hawaii is “level,” although the numbers vary
considerably. They had only 67 fires in 1997, but over 230 in 1995. The annual acreage burned
varies significantly from only 377 acres in 1997 to over 37,000 in 1998. Miscellaneous is the
single most frequent cause at 48 percent with arson as the second highest causal rate at 16
percent. An average of 80 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average size
of 1.2 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 694 acres.
This past year, Hawaii had 188 fires that burned 2,377 acres. This is well below the average
acres burned.
27

28
Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of Fire
Management - The IDL Bureau of Fire Management is
part of the Department of Lands.
Responsibility
The Department of Lands is required to protect State and private forests. The Idaho
Forestry Act States; “Any forest or range fire burning out of control...is hereby declared a
public nuisance, by reason of its menace to life and/or property. ...The director of the Department
of Lands or any fire warden may summarily abate the nuisance thus constituted by
controlling or extinguishing such fire...” (38-107). The Act also states ...every owner of forest
land will: (a) provide their own forest fire protection, or (b) join an association of forest
landowners to provide forest fire protection, or failing either of the first two options; (c) the
director of the Department of Lands will provide the protection (38-111).
Protection System
The Department is divided into eleven districts and operates 57 engine companies to
protect just over 6 million acres. Staffing is provided with full-time and seasonal employees.
There are 170 local government fire departments in Idaho.
Fire Activity
Idaho averages about 500 wildland fires and burns about 62,000 acres a year. The ten
year statistics show that the number of fires in Idaho is increasing. However, 2000 was an
exceptional year when the number of lightning fires were up about 60% and debris burning
fires were nearly double the average. The annual acreage burned varies significantly from 533
acres in 1995 to over 142,000 in 2000. Lightning is the single most frequent cause at 49
percent with debris burning as the second highest causal rate at 15 percent. An average of 95
percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres, with an average size of 0.549 acres. The
average size of fires over 10 acres was 2,445 acres.
Fire Season 2002 was below average for Idaho, with 386 wildfires burning only 7,972
acres, well below the 5-year average.

Kansas Forest Service - The Kansas Forest Service is a state agency
within the Kansas State University.
Responsibility
The Kansas Forest Service is responsible for ...providing assistance for the prevention and
suppression of forest, brush or grassland fires in non-federal areas of the State except on lands
within the exterior boundaries of incorporated cities (KSA 76-425A through 76-425F, as
amended). This area is approximately 46.4 million acres.
Protection System
All of the fire protection on these lands is provided by various rural fire departments and
districts. There are 673 fire departments or districts in the State. The Kansas Forest Service
maintains cooperative agreements with 506 of them, providing equipment, training and assistance
with funding, prevention and planning.
Fire Activity
Kansas averages just over 4,700 wildland fires and burns just under 56,000 acres a year.
The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Kansas are on a slight rise. The annual
acreage burned varied from 31,676 acres in 1998 to over 93,000 acres in 2002. Debris burning
is the single most frequent cause at 36 percent. An average of 75 percent of the fires were
contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 1.48 acres. The average size of fires over 10
acres was 759 acres.
Fire Season 2002 was about the same as 2000 in Kansas, but not nearly as bad as 1996,
when more than 430,000 acres burned. The State had 50 large fires (>300 acres) in 2002. Ten
fires burned over 1,000 acres each. The largest, burning 12,000 acres in Greenwood County in
April, was the result of improper disposal of hot ashes.
29

Montana DNRC Fire and Aviation Program - The Montana
DNRC Fire and Aviation Program is within the Montana Department
of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division.
Responsibility
The State of Montana has declared ...That the Department shall protect the natural resources
of the State from fire and that the Department is responsible for fire protection on all
forest lands within this State that are officially classified by the Department as forest lands...
(MCA 76-13-101 and 103). The Department has declared 5.1 million acres of State and private
lands as forested and under their jurisdiction. This includes privately owned forested lands
within the boundaries of an incorporated city. Priority is given to the protection of forested lands
owned by the State. The State has given the Department a secondary protection for 45.3 million
acres of State and privately owned non-forested lands in the State. These lands are predominately
found in eastern Montana.
Protection System
The Montana DNRC Fire and Aviation Program staffs 65 engine (and water tender) companies
and five helicopters to protect the 5.1 million acres. Montana DNRC also loans over 350
engines to local fire agencies, primarily in the eastern part of the State. DNRC is also given the
responsibility to coordinate all mutual aid responses of fire department resources that cross
county lines.
Fire Activity
Montana averages just over 450 wildland fires and burns just under 72,000 acres a year.
The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Montana are about level. The annual
acreage burned varied from 3,430 acres in 1997 to over 168,744 acres in 2000. Lightning is the
single most frequent cause of fires at 48 percent with debris burning as the second highest causal
rate at 14 percent.
For Fire Season 2002, Montana had 471 fires that burned 28,811 acres. While the number
of fires is even with the 5-year average, the acres burned are less than half.
30

Nebraska Forest Service - The Nebraska Forest Service is part of
the University of Nebraska system.
Responsibility
The State of Nebraska has given the State Forester powers to “develop and implement
plans for the prevention and suppression of forest, brush, and grassland fires on both public
and private lands.” This means the Nebraska Forest Service has a secondary protection responsibility
for 49,083,520 acres—the entire State.
Protection System
Local government provides the protection for the State. The Nebraska Forest Service
coordinates training and grant distribution. There are 476 rural fire districts in Nebraska.
Fire Activity
Nebraska averages just over 1,300 wildland fires and burns just over 110,000 acres a year.
The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Nebraska are on a slight increase. The
annual acreage burned varied from 17,230 acres in 2001 to over 252,000 acres in 2000. Debris
burning is the second most frequent cause at 26 percent with miscellaneous as the highest
causal rate at 30 percent. An average of 77 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres
with an average size of 1.34 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 694 acres.
In Fire Season 2002, Nebraska had 1,835 fires that burned 90,562 acres. This is a high
level of occurrence, but the acreage burned was below average despite five Class G fires.
31

Nevada Division of Forestry - The Nevada Division of Forestry
is a division of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources.
Responsibility
Nevada statute mandates the State Forester Firewarden to ...administer all fire control laws
and all forestry laws in Nevada outside of township boundaries. In addition to providing fire
protection to State and privately owned lands, “the State Forester Firewarden is also mandated
to “assist and encourage county or local fire protection districts to create legally constituted
fire protection districts where they are needed and offer guidance and advice in their operation.
A change in the boundaries of a fire protection district, including withdrawals of any portion,
may be denied by the State Forester Firewarden if he determines such change will impair or
affect it’s organization, or affect, impair, or discharge any contract, obligation, lien, or charge
on which it might be liable or chargeable had such change of boundaries not been made.”
Since the Division derives some of it’s funding from property taxes, the level of protection it is
obligated to provide is the same as that of a municipal fire department. The Division has direct
protection responsibility for 9,501,784 acres of the State, and coordination responsibilities for
an additional 17,433,631 acres. The Division responds to over 3,000 calls for help each year,
with over half of them being medical aids or assistance to other agencies.
Protection System
The Nevada Division of Forestry employees approximately 230 full-time personnel including
123 personnel within the fire program and an additional 40 seasonal employees. There are
approximately 600 volunteer fire department members for which the Division pays industrial
insurance coverage. The Division also cooperates closely with the 1,511 volunteer/career and
volunteer fire departments throughout the State. The Division has a close working arrangement
with the Department of Corrections to operate 77 twelve-person conservations crews plus one
conservation crew specifically assigned to helitack. The Division maintains an insured fleet of
nearly 600 vehicles. This fleet includes 185 engines, 39 water tenders and five bulldozers. The
Division operates two helicopters, as well as one fixed wing aircraft.
32

Fire Activity
Nevada averages just under 230 wildland fires and burns over 23,000 acres a year. The five
year statistics show that the number of fires in Nevada are fairly constant. The annual acreage
burned varied from 418 acres in 1997 to over 87,000 acres in 2000. Debris burning is the most
frequent cause at 30 percent, with miscellaneous second at 29 percent. An average of 90 percent
of the fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 1.0 acres. The average size
of fires over 10 acres was 1,580 acres.
For Fire Season 2002, Nevada had 269 fires that burned only 2,833 acres, well below their
5-year average.
33

New Mexico State Forestry Division - The New Mexico
State Forestry Division is a division of the New Mexico Department of
Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources.
Responsibility
The State of New Mexico has declared ...The State shall have the responsibility for prevention
and suppression of forest fires on all non-federal, non-municipal lands in the State (68-2-
8). The Division has the responsibility to protect 42.5 million acres of the State.
Protection System
The Division maintains Cooperative Intergovernmental Agreements or Joint Powers
Agreements with 230 county fire departments and 60 municipal fire departments and reimburses
them for wildland fire suppression services. There are approximately 359 organized fire
departments in the State. The Division maintains numerous Joint Powers Agreements with
various state and federal agencies
Fire Activity
New Mexico averages about 800 wildland fires and burns just over 160,000 acres a year.
The five year statistics show that the number of fires in New Mexico is highly variable. The
annual acreage burned varied from 39,849 acres in 2001 to over 376,000 acres in 2000. Lightning
is the single most frequent cause at 36 percent and miscellaneous is the second highest
causal rate at 30 percent. An average of 69 percent of the fires were contained at under 10 acres
with the average size of 1.5 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 146 acres.
New Mexico had 794 fires that burned 226,492 acres in Fire Season 2002. This is about
average for number of fires and about 40% more than the average acres. Six Class G fires
burned 100,876 acres.
34

North Dakota Forest Service - The North Dakota Forest Service is
a division of North Dakota State University.
Responsibility
The State of North Dakota has declared ...The State Forester is specifically authorized to
apply for, receive, and expend federal grants-in-aid and matching funds for fire protection
services, and generally aid rural fire departments and rural fire protection districts with all
activities customary in the prevention and suppression of forest, brush, and grassland fires. The
State Forester has the responsibility to coordinate the wildland fire protection in North Dakota.
Protection System
There are 388 fire departments or fire districts in the State. They are responsible for the
suppression of all fires on State or privately owned lands. The North Dakota Forest Service
maintains cooperative agreements with 384 fire departments and fire districts.
Fire Activity
North Dakota averages over 500 wildland fires and burns nearly 66,000 acres a year. The
five year statistics show that the number of fires in North Dakota are on the rise. The annual
acreage burned varied from nearly 167,000 acres in 2002 to a low of 6,504 acres in 2001.
Miscellaneous is the second most frequent cause at 21 percent with debris burning as the highest
causal rate at 40 percent. An average of 83 percent of the fires were contained at less than 10
acres with an average fire size of 1.59 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 398
acres.
For Fire Season 2002, North Dakota had 325 fires that burned 29,565 acres. This is below
the 5-year average, and less than one-half the acreage burned in 1999.
35

Oregon Department of Forestry - The Oregon Department of Forestry
works under the direction of the State Board of Forestry whose members are
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The State Forester in
turn is appointed by a seven person Board.
Responsibility
The State of Oregon has declared that it is the responsibility of the individual forest landowners
to protect their land from wildland fires. The landowner has three alternative ways of providing this
protection: (1) they can provide for the direct protection themselves; (2) they can join a nonprofit
association that will provide for the protection; or (3) they can allow the State to provide the
protection. In all cases, the Board of Forestry must approve of the method of protection.
There are about 13.6 million acres of private and state-owned forested lands in the State. No
landowner has elected to protect their own lands, but many have joined one of the three protection
associations. These associations protect about 2.3 million acres of the 13.6 million acres of private
forest and State lands. Each landowner is assessed a fee to provide protection.
Protection System
The Department of Forestry and the three associations employ 162 permanent and 500 seasonal
personnel to provide fire protection. They operate 228 engines, 14 initial attack bulldozer units, 19
ten-person handcrews (inmates), 2 aircraft and contract for 2 single engine airtankers.
Fire Activity
Oregon has averaged over the last five years about 1,079 fires that burn about 35,169 acres. The
5-year statistics show that the number of fires is very slowly increasing, however, the number of
human caused fires, on a per capita basis, is falling. The leading cause is lighting (29%), with debris
burning second (21%).
For Fire Season 2002, Oregon had 1,175 fires that burned 99,047 acres. The number of fires is
slightly above average and the number of acres burned is significantly above average. There were
fewer lightning fires and more debris burning fires in 2002. The Biscut Fire (499,570 acres) on the
Siskiyou National Forest burned nearly the entire Kamiopsis Wilderness and was one of the largest
fires in recent Oregon history.
36

South Dakota Wildland Fire Suppression Division - The South
Dakota Wildland Fire Suppression Division is a division of the State’s Department
of Agriculture.
Responsibility
“The State of South Dakota has declared under 41-20-1.1. Employment of state wildland
fire coordinator — Qualifications and general authority: The Department of Agriculture may
employ a state wildland fire coordinator who shall be qualified for and authorized to carry out
all wildfire suppression activities.”
The Division is directly responsible for the protection of 949,117 acres of State and
privately owned forested lands and has secondary protection of over 47 million acres of nonforested
lands.
Protection System
The South Dakota Wildland Fire Suppression Division employs 19 full-time employees
and 18 seasonal firefighters who operate 18 state-owned engines and water tenders. The State
maintains cooperative agreements with various local, State, and federal agencies to work
cooperatively to suppress wildland fires regardless of land ownership. The Division has signed
agreements with various rural fire departments covering the dispatch of 440 engine companies
located primarily in the Black Hills area. There are 364 organized rural fire departments in the
State.
Fire Activity
South Dakota averages 674 wildland fires and burns just over 140,000 acres a year. The
five-year statistics show that the number of fires in South Dakota is increasing. The majority of
the fires reported occurred in the Black Hills area of western South Dakota. Lightning is the
single most frequent cause of fires at 24 percent with debris burning as the second highest
causal rate at 23 percent. An average of 67 percent of fires were contained at less than 10 acres.
In Fire Season 2002, South Dakota had 725 fires that burned 166,928 acres. They had 5
Class G fires that burned more than 94,000 acres.
37

Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands - The
Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands is part of the Department
of Natural Resources.
Responsibility
The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands is responsible to determine and execute
the best methods for protecting private and public lands by preventing and suppressing
fires on non-federally owned forest, range, and watershed lands in unincorporated areas of the
state. There are approximately 15 million acres of private, State and other lands which fall in
the State’s area of responsibility.
Protection System
The Division employs district fire wardens who manage initial attack throughout the State.
Rural fire departments are used extensively in the initial attack role, along with State and
federal resources in closest forces system. The State, through a number of agencies, maintains
suppression resources and management personnel to manage suppression operations that escape
initial attack. They utilize suppression tactics and strategies that match the suppression effort
with the values at risk. Where and when possible, fire is allowed to play its natural role in the
environment commiserate with public and firefighter safety, property and resource values. Close
cooperative relations exist with all counties, other State agencies and the federal fire agencies to
provide suppression resources for use inside and outside the State.
Fire Activity
Utah averages over 700 wildland/urban interface fires and burns approximately 68,000
acres of private and State lands each year. Acres burned varies from a low of 12,000 to over
178,000 in a single season. On average, 50 percent of fires are human-caused. In the 2002 Fire
Season, Utah had 613 fires that burned about 68,524 acres of private and State lands. Statistically,
Utah had an average season; however, due to several large fires in remote parts of the
State, 2002 was the most expensive fire season in history. Over $19 million was spent to
suppress fire on private and State land.
38

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Resource
Protection Division - The Washington DNR Forest Fire Control Program
is under the Commissioner of Public Lands, an elected official.
Responsibility
The Washington DNR Forest Fire Control Program is responsible for the protection of all
private and state forest lands. It also provides protection for lands that are adjacent to or intermingled
with forest lands in eastern Washington. Responsibility is authorized under Washington
RCW 76.04. Under cooperative agreement the Department also protects 15,000 acres of USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service lands, 7,000 acres of USDI Bureau of Land Management lands, and
226,000 acres for the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs. Total area protected is approximately 12.5
million acres.
Protection System
The Department staffs 114 initial attack engine companies, two 20-person crews, and 3
helicopters. Of the 1,200 permanent personnel, 350 are fireline rated. An additional 350 seasonal
firefighters are hired yearly. In addition, the Department contracts for one airtanker to
supplement it’s initial attack suppression forces, and during critical periods, they can utilize up
to 400 inmates from the State correctional system in handcrews. Mutual aid agreements are
maintained with over 350 local government fire departments to supplement initial attack operations.
There are 560 local government fire departments in Washington.
Fire Activity
Washington averages 850 wildland fires and burns an average of 13,000 acres a year. The
five-year statistics show that the number of fires in Washington are declining just slightly.
Annual acreage burned varied from 4,650 acres in 1997 to 23,511 acres in 1998. Miscellaneous
is the single most frequent cause at 27 percent with debris burning as the second highest causal
rate at 25 percent. An average of 95 percent of the fires were contained at under 10 acres with
an average fire size of 0.62 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 584 acres.
In Fire Season 2002, Washington had 889 fires that burned 10,063 acres; above average for
number of fires, but below for numbers of acres.
39

Wyoming State Forestry Division - The Wyoming State Forestry
Division is a division under the Director of the Office of State Lands
and Investments.
Responsibility
The State of Wyoming has declared ...The State Forester shall take such action as may be
deemed necessary by the State Board of Land Commissioners, to protect forest, range, and other
rural resources from fire. This responsibility shall in no way diminish the responsibility or authority
of local fire protection districts (State statute 36-2-108(b)(i). The Division has the responsibility to
protect 3.6 million acres of State owned lands. Most of the State lands are scattered (checkerboard)
throughout the State. The Division also has the coordinating responsibility on an additional 27.1
million acres of privately owned rural lands.
Protection System
The Division maintains the Wyoming Interagency Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement with
all 23 counties in the State and the various federal land management agencies, for the response of
over 4,000 volunteer firefighters and over 1,000 engine companies to suppress fires under the State’s
jurisdiction. Approximately 425 of the locally operated engines have been obtained through the
Federal Excess Property Program. The agreement authorizes the exchange of resources, dollars and
other pre-suppression activities. There are approximately 172 organized fire departments in Wyoming.
Fire Activity
Wyoming averages 647 (State and private) wildland fires and burns an average of 129,000
acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Wyoming are on the increase.
The annual acreage burned varied from 18,414 acres in 2001 to 358,648 acres in 2000. Lightning is
the single most frequent cause at 30 percent with miscellaneous as the second highest causal rate at
23 percent. An average of 83 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average fire
size of 1.15 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 2,741 acres.
In Fire Season 2002, Wyoming had 815 fires that burned 163,226 acres, above the 5-year
average. Fire Season 2002 saw only half as many Class G fires and half as many acres burned in
Wyoming as in 2000.
40

Suppression Policies - Fire Management vs. Fire Control
Wildland fire protection in the West can be undertaken with any one of a variety of suppression
policies, depending on the location and burning conditions of the fire, the mission of
the fire protection jurisdiction responsible for suppression, and the land management policies of
the landowner.
Much of the wildland in the West is managed by one of the five big federal land management
agencies. Usually, but not always, the federal agency that manages the land also is the
agency with fire protection jurisdiction. In this situation, wildland fires are frequently managed
(not necessarily suppressed) to achieve results in support of the agency’s land management
plan. Three examples best illustrate the most common of these situations:
Most wildfires are suppressed; some
are managed.
• A lightning fire in the high country of a national park burning under normal weather
conditions may be allowed to burn while only being monitored by NPS personnel, as fire is
a natural part of the landscape and NPS seeks to avoid human intervention (and damages)
in the natural environment. If the fire grows too large, burns too intensely, or threatens
improvements, the Park Service may decide to take suppression action. Otherwise, the fire
may be allowed to burn itself out.
• An unplanned ignition in a part of a national forest where hazard reduction, type conversion,
etc. is part of an approved management plan may be managed to achieve specific land
management objectives. Forest Service personnel may use indirect attack methods and
back off to natural or man-made barriers some distance from the fire, achieving containment
of the wildfire, but allowing it to burn at appropriate intensity in a watershed, cut
block, or other land management unit where fire is an integral part of the approved management
plan.
• A fire burning on a military firing range may not be suppressed, but allowed to burn
itself out to preplanned firebreaks, as entry into an area containing unexpended munitions
would be hazardous to firefighters.
41

Other fires on federal lands during the normal fire season will usually be suppressed by the
agency with direct protection responsibility, as they usually start in the wrong place, burn with
too much intensity or speed to meet land management criteria, or threaten improvements or
other properties.
Most wildland fire protection in the
West is provided by either a state or
federal agency.
Most other wildland fire protection in the West is provided either by state forestry agencies,
forest protective associations or by local government fire protection districts. In most cases
these agencies are providing fire protection to lands owned or managed by someone else, so
they lack the authority to make a decision about the use of fire on the landscape and operate
under a policy of immediate, direct suppression of all wildfires. These same agencies may very
well assist landowners in conducting prescribed burns for hazard reduction and land management
purposes, but an unplanned wildfire is treated as a public nuisance and controlled as soon
as practicable. In some cases, upon consultation with a landowner and a determination that the
risks and cost-benefit ratios are appropriate, these wildland agencies may manage a fire to help
the landowner (and the agency) achieve a specific goal, especially when this may reduce suppression
costs. In some cases, a contained wildfire may be turned over to the landowner to
monitor or extinguish, especially on large properties where the owner (e.g. rancher, timber
company) has adequate private resources to maintain control of the fire.
Complications
A complicating factor arises when fire protection duties are delegated by the
agency or jurisdiction to another agency for economic or operational reasons. For
example, in some parts of the West, portions of a national forest may receive direct
fire protection service from the state forestry agency, while the FS may protect
private lands within the forest, saving each agency money. In Southwestern Oregon,
BLM manages a great deal of timberland broken up into one section blocks
intermixed with private property protected by the Oregon Department of Forestry
(ODF). Since BLM does not wish to provide fire protection to private lands and it
would be impractical for BLM to duplicate the existing ODF protection system,
BLM contracts with ODF to provide fire protection to the public lands. BLM
personnel still manage the land, plan and execute prescribed burns, serve on fire
management teams, etc., but ODF is the primary provider of wildland fire protection
services to the public, as well as the adjacent private lands (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Thinning in Ponderosa Pine plantaion in Oregon.
42

Figure 5. Rural interface condition; regrowth of brush in thinned pine
plantation in Oregon. Note houses on slope in background.
In recent years, in more and
more parts of the West, the
opportunity to manage a wildfire
using an indirect suppression
strategy has disappeared due to
increased development and
population growth in the wildlands.
A thousand acres of forest
near any metropolitan area may
well have a hundred or more
landowners, each with his/her
own values, priorities, and plans
for the land. The fire agencies
cannot put themselves in the
position of refereeing conflicts
between landowners or other
special interest groups, and
therefore put the fire out first,
and “ask questions later”. Any wildfire may soon threaten somebody else’s property, structures,
water rights, viewshed, etc. and thus needs to be contained or controlled on the property of
origin whenever possible (Figure 5).
Unified command gives each agency a
voice in the fire suppression
operation.
This is where conflicts between the values, missions, policies, and procedures of the
various wildland fire agencies can get in the way of true interagency cooperation. When fire
management personnel from an area where jurisdiction always means suppression responsibility
go to a fire in an area with interagency protection agreements and operating plans, they need to
take the time to understand the roles of the various players.
Opportunities
Frequently in the West, it may be appropriate for a state/local team to manage a federal
fire, or for a federal team to manage a state fire. In either case, the teams have to forget about
their parent agency’s policies and procedures, and adopt the policies and procedures of the
agency they are working for. When a major fire involves more than one jurisdiction, the fire
management team must involve the administrators and chief officers of all the other jurisdictional
agencies in a true Unified Command. On a large fire, it may well be that the FS, BLM,
43

State forestry agency, and one or more local fire protection districts all need to be directly
involved in both planning and executing the suppression strategy. When multiple large fires
occur, the Multi-Agency Coordinating System (MACS) needs to be used; with decision
makers from all involved protection agencies jointly establishing priorities and allocating scarce
resources.
MACS should set priorities and
allocate scarce resources.
Sometimes agency administrators (line officers) who are not fully cognizant of the applicable
interagency agreements and operating plans, lack experience and/or understand their responsibilities
in fire operations. Fire management teams need to work closely with administrators to assure that
conflicting policies, missions, or values do not get in the way of taking appropriate suppression
action in a timely manner. It may
be appropriate for a district ranger
to mull over the potential to scoop
up rare and endangered trout in a
fire helicopter’s water bucket, but
not at the moment that the fire is
threatening to burn “Joe
Taxpayer’s” ranch (Figure 6).
Conflicting policies, missions,
and values will always
exist in the wildlands. It is
incumbent upon the fire management
personnel of all agencies to
recognize and mitigate these
conflicts before, not during, the
fire. Clear, comprehensive
interagency agreements and
operating plans, and adequate
Figure 6. Selective logging, slash treated, ready for broadcast burning
in Oregon.
training for appropriate decision-makers can help insure that fires get managed or controlled in
the most effective way, rather than burn unchecked while turf battles rage.
44

The Fire Environment
Every one of us must be concerned with the state of our natural environment. In any
discussion about impacts on the environment, we need also to factor in what the economic and
social factors are. You can never hope for success if this is not done. If these three very important
factors in our society are discussed as stand alone issues, there will never be a solution to
our problems.
Warming Trends
For some years now, scientists, naturalists, politicians, and other alarmists have been
worrying aloud about the phenomenon of global warming and its possible consequences for
humankind. The thinking is that “greenhouse gases”, especially carbon dioxide produced from
fossil fuels combustion, are modifying our atmosphere in such a way that the average temperature
of the whole world is increasing. Various studies show that this warming (up to 2 degrees
F) of average temperatures can lead to significant changes in our ecosystems, some of which
could be disastrous.
Environmental ecology includes
economic and social factors, not just
flora and fauna.
For example, some predict the melting of the polar icecaps and mountain glaciers could
raise sea level enough to permanently flood coastal cities worldwide that are home to millions
of people. Meteorologists predict that “normal” weather patterns will change, transforming rain
forests to deserts and tundra to tropical forest. Scientists claim that boreal forests are marching
northward, deserts are expanding, rivers and lakes are shrinking, and this is only the beginning
of even greater change.
Whether directly related to global warming, or just an anomaly of our statistical data base,
it seems like severe drought conditions are becoming more common in recent years. Some
blame “El Nino”, the warm water pool, or “La Nina”, the cold water pool, in the central Pacific
Ocean, for disrupting normal storm tracking patterns into the U.S. Three consecutive “El Nino”
winters have pushed the jet stream to the north, with fewer wet storms reaching the U.S. Whatever
the cause, widespread drought conditions have contributed to greatly increased fire danger
throughout the country in the last several years.
45

Major wildfires have occurred in places like New York, New Jersey, and Florida in recent
years. These places normally have enough moisture year round to keep fire danger relatively
low, compared to normal summer conditions in much of the arid West.
In 2002, almost half of the USA
suffered moderate to extreme
drought conditions.
In 2002, almost half of the USA suffered moderate to extreme drought conditions. Much
of the eastern seaboard, from Maryland to Alabama suffered drought that withered crops and
depleted local domestic water supplies. The southwestern U.S. was particularly hard hit, as the
extreme drought centered on the “Four Corners” region continued into its fifth year. This spring
was the driest on record (107 years) in Colorado and the second driest in Arizona and Southern
California.
Some of the effects of this severe drought in the West are easy to spot: “bathtub” rings
around major reservoirs, increased insect and disease outbreaks in forests, streams reduced to
trickles, and brush going dormant or dying back. In Arizona, bark beetle infestations have killed
25-30% of the Ponderosa Pine forest in the Flagstaff area. In the surrounding lower elevations
covered with Pinyon-Juniper forest, nearly all of the Pinyon Pine has died.
Some of the effects are less obvious: reduced food and water sources stress many species
of wildlife, but won’t be apparent until winter die off counts are in. The migration of everything
from deer and elk to butterflies can be disrupted when food sources whither. Golden Trout gasp
in stagnant pools of warm water. Then things get worse.
Forest Health
The huge wildfires that ravaged the West in 2000 were thought to be the result of an
unusual set of circumstances (drought + weather + lightning) that would not be repeated for
many years. Fire season 2002 proved that theory held as little water as some western lakes.
The forests of the West today are overstocked compared to pre-settlement forests. Many
more individual trees compete for sunlight, nutrients, water, and growing space on each acre of
ground. The trees are smaller, closer together, and slower growing than they should be. When
conditions turn marginal, the weaker trees die as nature tries to balance the population with the
carrying capacity of the forest (Figure 7).
The extended drought, global warming, and years of exclusion of fire from the forests have
created unusually high fuel volumes that allow wildfires to burn with great intensity, frequently
46

well beyond the capabilities of fire
suppression forces. The fuel
available to today’s wildfires
consists of years of accumulated
logging slash, dead trees killed by
insects and disease, highly flammable
brush species that provide
“ladder fuels” for fire to travel
into the crowns of the trees, and
non-native grasses that are highly
flammable and promote the easy
ignition and rapid spread of new
fires.
Most brush species have
adapted to drought conditions by Figure 7. Untreated Ponderosa Pine Forest in Arizona.
decreasing the ratio of live to dead
material in each plant, which makes them more flammable. Additionally, many brush species go
into a dormant condition during times of heat or drought stress, decreasing the plant’s live fuel
moisture to the critical level.
Overstocked, decadent forests mean
larger, more intensive wildfires.
In the pre-settlement era, frequent small, low intensity fires, usually caused by lightning,
but some ignited by Native Americans, created forests of larger trees, spread farther apart,
eliminated dead and dying trees, reduced the population of insects, and kept down the invasive
of brush. That forest was open and park like, with many open spaces, facilitating travel for man
and beast alike. Beginning in the mid 1800’s intense logging activity created large accumulations
of dead and down woody materials. Random burning of logging slash without regard for
fire intensity and post fire effects allowed increased invasion of brush and weed species, many
non-native virulent pests capable of out competing native vegetation. This cut and burn mentality
lasted up until “The Big Blow Up of 1910”, when massive wildfires destroyed more than 10
million acres, dozens of towns, and killed hundreds of people.
Prescribed Fire
Following the fires of 1910, public policy changed to require immediate suppression of
wildfires and to severely curtail controlled burns. In the fifty years that followed, federal and
47

state forestry agencies developed fire suppression capabilities that have largely excluded fire
from most of our forest lands. While some blame a “Smokey Bear Mentality” for excluding
fire from the forests, other factors are also responsible. Foresters have long recognized the
need for fire to reduce fuel loading, recycle nutrients, and reduce competition from undesirable
species. The problem has been that society has placed restraints on the use of controlled burns
(AKA prescribed fire). The backlash of public opinion against commercial logging has made
thinning of the forest for hazard reduction very difficult to accomplish. Air pollution concerns
limit the amount of burning that can be accomplished in a given area within a given timeframe
to uneconomical project sizes. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the fear of liability (i.e.
tort claims and civil suits) coinciding with the proliferation of trial lawyers, has made it very
risky for most landowners to attempt to use fire to restore forest health.
The situation we now face is that we need to reintroduce frequent, low intensity fires into
the forest ecosystems, but are prevented from doing so by the accumulation of fuel, the tangle
of red tape, and the fear of liability and conflicting public opinion.
Restoration Recipes
Because of the increased stand density, the accumulation of fuels, the presence
of highly flammable brush species that serve as ladder fuels promoting
crown fires, the effects of drought, and the exposure of neighboring properties it
is not possible to control burn the modern forest without extensive preparation.
Thinning of overstocked timber stands is the first step in the process of
restoring forest health. In most cases, logging and the sale of the wood products is
the only way to make forest health restoration projects even marginally costeffective.
Following a thinning cut, the slash needs to be treated to reduce its
height and surface-to-volume ratio to make it safe to burn. This can be done
mechanically with machines such as the Slashbuster or Hydroaxe, or manually by
crews that lop and pile the slash for burning under benign conditions. Only when
the stand has been thinned, the slash treated, the brush crushed, control lines
established, permits obtained, and forces organized can prescribed fire projects be
safely conducted (Figures 8, 9, and 10).
Figure 8. Commercial thinning cut with slash piled and burned in
Arizona.
48

Restoring
forest health is a
complicated issue
with many potential
roadblocks on
the path to success.
Only with
public understanding
and support,
interagency cooperation,
appropriate
funding levels,
and protection
from liability can
fire be used effectively
in its appropriate
environmental
role. Only with
prescribed fire can
forest health be
reasonably restored
on a landscape
scale to the
forests of the West
(Figures 11 and
12).
Figure 9. Creating openings in pine forest in Arizona. Note slash piled
for burning in background.
Figure 10. Low intensity fires like this are very beneficial to the
health of the forests.
Figure 11. Treated pine slash ready for burning in Arizona.
Figure 12. Pine trees thinned, slash piled for burning in Arizona.
49

Values at Risk
Fire management priorities:
1. Human health and safety;
2. Critical Watersheds/Resources/
Communities;
3. Natural Resources/Individual
Homes
The federal land agencies are adamant that it is not their responsibility to pay for protection
of structures threatened by encroaching wildfires originating on federal lands, because the
responsibility for protecting structures falls to the state or local governments.Compounding the
problem are conflicting federal policies: FireWise guidelines advise against building homes in
high fire hazard wildland areas; FEMA provides low-interest loans to homeowners whose
houses have been destroyed by wildfire so they can rebuild in the same area. Local governments
are reluctant to adopt stringent FireSafe regulations that would reduce fire threats to
structures, but look to the state and federal governments to provide, or at least fund, structure
protection during wildfires.
There are three significant categories of values at risk during a wildfire:
• Human health and safety - Human health and safety are threatened by wildfires, both
directly (being burned) and indirectly (air pollution), and since wildfires can threaten large
numbers of people, this is also an issue of broad public concern. Because poor forest
health means more fuel available, wildfires have been growing more intense, difficult to
control, and dangerous to firefighters. In recent years, there have been more firefighter
deaths and injuries, resulting in a trend to put firefighter safety above all other values at
risk, with sometimes unintended consequences.
• Natural resources - The natural resources on public lands belong to all citizens and are
therefore of broad public concern. Some of the natural resource values at risk during a
wildfire are timber, forage, wildlife, soil, water, and recreation. The natural resources on
private lands have public as well as private value and are also of broad public concern.
Some public values at risk of wildfire on private lands are timber, wildlife, soil, water, and
recreation. In other words, the public at large reaps benefits from healthy forests in private
ownership. This concept has been the basis for some states to take an active role in wildfire
protection. Unfortunately, due to several factors, the forests of America are overcrowded,
decadent, and capable of supporting unusually intense forest fires that do even
greater damage to the natural resources. Forest health should be a concern to everyone.
50

• Property - Property includes land and human improvements upon the land, which may
be in both public and private ownership. The loss of a single home in a forest fire is a
matter primarily of concern to the property owner and the insurance company. The loss of
many houses in a single community is a matter of concern to the whole community; as
such losses have psychological, physical, emotional, and economic effects on all residents.
If a large number of structures are lost, it will have an impact on the community’s infrastructure.
A classic example of a public value at risk and inadvertent damages occurred this
year in Colorado, where the Hayman Fire wiped out hundreds of homes. In one local fire
district so many homes were lost that the district lost 75-80% of its assessed valuation and
had to lay off firefighters and medics. The remaining residents have suffered a reduction in
fire protection and emergency medical services as a result of a wildfire originating on
federal land. This reduction in service will also discourage more burned out residents from
rebuilding. This small community may never recover. The loss of hundreds of homes in a
single wildfire, or thousands of homes in the nation each fire season, should be a matter of
concern to all Americans due to the direct costs of fire suppression and disaster reimbursement,
plus the indirect costs of air pollution, economic disruption, post-fire flood events,
water quality degradation, etc.
The loss of a single home is a tragedy
for the homeowner; the loss of
hundreds of homes is a loss for the
community.
Until very recently these values at risk from wildfires were not given the same priorities by
the different levels of government. The federal wildfire agencies, being also land management
agencies, put natural resource protection as their first priority. Local governments, being funded
in large measure by property taxes, put structure protection as their first priority. State forestry
and emergency management agencies frequently found themselves in the middle, being concerned
about public safety, property (e.g. tax base) loss, natural resource degradation (especially
on state lands), and the cost of post-fire rehabilitation and damage control (floods, etc.).
As the population has grown and people have acquired the fiscal and physical ability to
commute to their work, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of homes being built
in or adjacent to the wildlands. These homes in the woods have created what has come to be
termed the wildland/urban interface. Here the fire problem is compounded, as homes are at risk
from wildfires and forests are at risk from human activity in and near their residences. The
wildland/urban interface fire problem, once confined to southern California, is now significant
in almost every western state and getting worse each year. This year, wildfires in Colorado
threatened more than 140 subdivisions and forced the evacuation of more than 80,000 residents.
51

These improvements and human activities in/near the wildland have changed the nature of
fire fighting. When wildland was uninhabited, firefighters could choose their place to battle a
fire, usually at a ridge top, stream, road, or other existing barrier to fire spread where conditions
favored firefighting operations. Frequently, there was room to back off until burning conditions
moderated and it was easier to control the fire. Increasingly these days, firefighters must go after
a wildfire immediately, under all conditions, as there are probably homes or other improvements
nearby that are immediately in danger. This need to fight fire on the fire’s terms makes firefighting
more dangerous and more expensive.
FireSafe homes have ignition-resistant
roofs and adequate clearance.
As the wildland/urban interface has grown, the cost of fighting wildfires has risen dramatically.
Much of this cost increase is due to the additional fire engines, aircraft, and overhead that
are needed to protect improvements in front of the fire, often far in front of the fire, and often
for days on end. This dramatic increase in cost has concerned government officials, leading to
such counterproductive federal actions as failing to take appropriate structure protection measures,
refusing to pay for the costs of structure protection, etc. The high point of irresponsibility
on the structure protection issue was probably reached in 2002, when the Office of Management
and Budget noted that it was “cheaper to let the houses burn and pay the cost of rebuilding than
to protect them from wildfire.” Only a “bean counter” could ignore the fact that the most important
things to most families cannot be replaced when their home burns.
Taking Responsibility
Who then is really responsible for protecting structures in the wildland/urban interface
from encroaching wildfires The answer is nearly everybody.
First, property owners in the wildland/urban interface
must assume responsibility to provide an appropriate measure
of built-in fire protection for their improvements. The two most
important features to the survival of a structure threatened by a
wildfire are ignition-resistant construction and defensible
space. Roofing materials that are ignition-resistant prevent
falling firebrands from igniting a structure and help prevent fire
spread from structure to structure, which is a major cause of
fire transmission in large structure loss wildfires.
52

Defensible space or clearance provides an area around each
structure where vegetation has been managed to decrease fire
intensity enough to prevent spread to the structure and to provide
an area safe for firefighters to work in. These two measures,
tailored to the local fire danger, could dramatically reduce
structure loss.
Second, the community as a whole must
assume responsibility for protecting itself. This
includes applying peer pressure to property
owners who fail to make their properties
FireSafe. It means taking voluntary joint action
to mitigate what one property owner is not able
to do. It means taking actions to improve fire safety by adopting appropriate regulations on
development, building and maintaining fire defense improvements, forming, joining, and
supporting local fire departments, and teaching FireSafe principles to the next generation.
Individuals, communities, and all levels
of government need to be responsible
for wildland fire safety.
Third, local government needs to assume responsibility for appropriate fire prevention and
suppression measures. This means adopting planning and development regulations that promote
fire safety, requiring built-in fire protection measures in the wildland/urban interface, and
providing an appropriate level of fire protection service. It includes developing a system of fire
defense improvements such as water systems, helispots, fuelbreaks, firebreaks, access roads,
and safety zones. It means adopting strict street sign and house addressing regulations. It means
properly equipping and training the local fire department to safely and efficiently fight wildfires
and protect structures in the wildland/urban interface. It means developing automatic aid and
mutual aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions.
Fourth, state governments need to assume responsibility for an appropriate level of fire
protection on non-federal wildlands, especially in the wildland/urban interface. This can be
done in a variety of ways, on both state and private lands. The state can manage its own lands in
a manner that will assure healthy forests with lower fire danger. Properly managed State lands
can serve as demonstration areas for FireSafe and forest health improvement measures. The
State can assume a coordination role to facilitate joint cooperative FireWise/FireSafe projects
between all levels of government and the private sector. The State can sponsor FireSafe education
programs and provide model ordinances or regulations to assure an appropriate minimum
53

level of fire safety statewide. States can support and coordinate an efficient statewide mutual aid
system and can assume full responsibility for primary fire protection on non-federal wildlands,
thus reducing jurisdictional problems and avoiding widely variant levels of fire protection.
Improved forest health is key to the
survivability of our forests.
Last, the federal government needs to assume responsibility for an appropriate level of fire
protection on federal lands. This includes improving forest health and reducing fire hazards,
especially in the wildland/urban interface. It means providing leadership and funding to support
the efforts of state and local governments to reduce fire danger and improve fire protection in
the wildland/urban interface, especially near federal wildlands. It means eliminating conflicting
federal policies like subsidizing rebuilding structures already lost to fire in high hazard areas. It
means giving due consideration to values at risk from wildfire, both public and private, on lands
adjacent to federal wildlands. It means adopting land management and fire protection policies
and procedures that appropriately prioritize wildfire threats to natural resources, human health
and safety, and property. It means training its administrators and fire managers to recognize offforest
values at risk from wildfire and to take actions appropriate to the best overall public
interest rather than to their particular agency program.
Because wildfires are a threat to a broad range of public values and interests, it is imperative
that the broadest possible range of publics assume an appropriate level of responsibility for
wildfire prevention, control, and mitigation.
54

National Fire Plan
Fire Season 2000 in the West saw more than 8 million
acres and hundreds of structures burn as wildfires roamed from
the backcountry of the National Forests to the main streets of
cities like Los Alamos, and fire suppression costs soared.
Following this landmark season, a special report to the President,
entitled Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities
and the Environment became the focal point for the federal
government to take broad and far reaching actions to both
reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and improve fire prevention
and suppression capabilities, especially in the Wildland/
Urban Interface.
The National Fire Plan infused much
needed funding into the federal
wildland fire agencies.
Starting in 2001, a new federal wildland fire policy was issued
that was aimed at ensuring consistency, coordination, and integration of
wildland fire management programs throughout all agencies of the federal
government. The new policy focused on principles such as giving firefighter and public
safety first priority, recognizing the role of wildfire in natural ecosystems, integrating
fire management and other land management programs, improving the economic
viability of fire protection systems, using appropriate science as the
basis for planning, and coordinating with other levels of government.
Seventeen basic policy statements were to be incorporated
into the directives, manuals, and training systems of every federal
agency involved in wildland fire protection.
That same year, Congress appropriated an additional $1.6
billion to begin implementation of the new fire policy and directed
the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop a longterm
strategy (National Fire Plan) to deal with wildland fires and
mitigate hazardous fuel situations. This strategy, A Collaborative
Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and
the Environment; 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (often shortened
to “The Strategy”), was completed in August 2001.
55

The goals of The Strategy are:
• Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression
• Reduce Hazardous Fuels
• Restore Fire-Adapted Ecosystems
A ten-year plan has been developed.
• Promote Community Assistance
An Implementation Plan for The Strategy was completed in
May of 2002 and endorsed by the federal agencies and their partners,
including state forestry agencies and tribal governments. The
plan should improve cooperation and communication among all
parties at all levels and help insure that key project planning decisions
are made at the local level. It also establishes responsibility
among the participants for planning, prioritizing, and accomplishing
tasks in a timely and cost-effective manner consistent with
changing conditions and relevant science. See the Appendix for a
more detailed look at the components of the National Fire Plan, including state funding data.
One of the significant outcomes of the new effort was the FireWise program. Sponsored by
a consortium of federal agencies with a good deal of cooperator involvement, this program was
focused on increasing awareness of the Wildland/Urban Interface fire problem at the local level.
A series of seminars has been held around the country to provide local planning and fire officials
with the knowledge and tools, including educational materials, to better prepare their
communities to cope with the threat of wildfire.
Under the National Fire Plan, funding was made
available to the federal wildfire agencies to increase
their fire suppression forces and to expand the scope of
their fuel reductions projects. State Fire Assistance funds
help state wildfire agencies improve their protection
systems and are funneled to local communities as grants
to support hazard reduction projects. Volunteer Fire
56

Assistance funds are routed to rural fire
departments in the WUI to assist them in
acquiring equipment, safety gear, and
training to more effectively suppress
wildfires and provide structure protection
from encroaching wildfires. Unfortunately,
unless Congress acts to pass a supplemental
appropriation, much of this funding may
be siphoned off to pay for the high suppression
costs incurred by the federal fire
agencies during Fire Season 2002.
The National Fire Plan reflects the
views of a broad cross-section of government
and non-government interests. The
participants recognize that the problem is
complex and will not be solved soon. The hope is that the risks from wildland fire to our communities
and environment can be diminished over time as we make progress in achieving
defined objectives in a collaborative manner, as funding is made available from as many
sources as possible.
National Fire Plan Funding
In order to get a full perspective of the National Fire Plan, you have to look at it from
several points of view. From the national point of view, it is a very big plan; a plan that has
infused much needed funding into the federal wildland firefighting agencies. From the state’s
viewpoint, the level of funding is significant, because it allows some activities that have never
been funded before (Figure 13).
The vast majority of the NFP dollars
are for the federal agencies.
Only three states noted significant
improvement in the initial attack
capabilities of the federal agencies in
2002.
It was known, right from the beginning, that the funds would not last forever. In fact, the
funding was based on the 10-year plan. The estimated appropriation for FY 2003 is 29 percent
less than the FY 2001 appropriation (Figure 14).
57

National Fire Plan Funding
(in thousands)
Agency FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
FY 2003
President's Budget
FY 2004
Request
USDA Forest Service $1,035,125 $1,910,192 $1,590,712 $1,399,531 $1,572,203
Deparment of Interior $490,957 $977,099 $678,421 $653,754 $698,725
Total $1,526,082 $2,887,291 $2,269,133 $2,053,285 $2,270,928
Figure 13. The National Fire Plan has infused considerable funding in the federal wildland firefighting
agencies. Most of this funding will be expended by the federal agencies.
There are several program areas within the plan: preparedness, operations, emergency
contingency, etc. Figure 15 provides a broad overview of how funds have been allocated to
these various programs. Note that the funding for the state programs falls under operations
(highlighted and in bold italic print).
The state forestry agencies are
allocated funds from the Community
Assistant program.
The percentage of the total National Fire Plan funding in the State Fire Assistance, Volunteer
Fire Assistance and Rural Fire Assistance programs (for all 50 of the states) is less than 5
percent of the total.
In FY 2002 the federal
$3,500,000
agencies “chalked up” some very
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
impressive accomplishments
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
using the National Fire Plan
$1,000,000
$500,000
allocations. Even though the
$0
states do not administer these
funds, they do benefit the states in
the long run. Not directly, but
there is considerable benefit. For
a complete report on the status of
the National Fire Plan, review FY
2002 Performance Report - National Fire Plan.
(in thousands)
National Fire Plan Funding
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
President's
Budget
FY 2004
Request
Deparment of
Interior
USDA Forest
Service
Figure 14. The funding for the National Fire Plan is already
showing a decline. The appropriation for FY 2003 is 29% less
than the peak.
58

National Fire Plan Funding by Program
(in thousands)
FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
DOI FS Total DOI FS Total DOI FS Total
Prepardedness $165,849 $408,768 $574,617 $314,712 $611,143 $925,855 $280,807 $622,618 $903,425
Operations
Suppression $58,068 $139,188 $197,256 $191,109 $319,324 $510,433 $161,424 $321,321 $482,745
Hazardous Fuels Reduction $47,040 $70,000 $117,040 $194,971 $205,158 $400,129 $186,190 $209,010 $395,200
Emergency Stabilization and
Rehabilitation
$20,000 $20,000 $66,769 $141,688 $208,457 $40,000 $62,668 $102,668
Fire Facilities Backlog $43,903 $43,903 $20,376 $20,376
Research and Development $15,965 $15,965 $27,265 $27,265
Joint Fire Science $8,000 $8,000
State Fire Assistance $23,929 $23,929 $77,828 $77,828 $81,693 $81,693
Volunteer Fire Assistance $3,240 $3,240 $13,251 $13,251 $13,313 $13,315
Rural Fire Assistance $9,978 $9,978 $10,000 $10,000
Forest Health Management $11,974 $11,974 $11,974 $11,974
Economic Action Program $12,472 $12,472 $12,472 $12,472
Community and Private Lands
Assistance
$34,923 $34,923
Subtotal Operations $125,108 $236,357 $361,465 $462,827 $876,486 $1,339,313 $397,614 $768,094 $1,165,708
Total Non-Emergency $290,957 $936,082 $777,539 $1,487,629 $2,265,168 $678,421 $1,390,712 $2,069,133
Emergency Contingency $200,000 $590,000 $199,560 $425,063 $624,623 $200,000 $200,000
Agency Total $490,957 $1,526,082 $977,099 $1,912,692 $2,889,791 $678,421 $1,590,712 $2,269,133
Figure 15. This is the breakdown of the funding levels for the various programs. The three highlighted programs in the middle of the chart are the programs for state and
local fire agencies.
Some of these programs need a little explanation, because the heading alone does not fully
explain its depth or true meaning:
• Firefighting - This is a major part of the National Fire Plan. It covers fire preparedness,
work force planning and improvements, training, facilities and equipment. It now also
includes funds for “fire facilities backlog.”
• Rehabilitation - This program involves post-fire rehabilitation work after a wildfire that
is unlikely to recover naturally. Some examples involve reforestation, road and trail reha-
59

ilitation, fence replacement, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, invasive plant treatments,
and replanting and reseeding with native or other desirable vegetation.
State Fire Assistance is for the
states to use for preparedness and
other programs.
• Hazardous Fuels Reduction - There has been considerable reporting on how 100-years
of “successful” fire suppression has not allowed natural fire to keep our forests clean. The
funds provided are part of a long-term strategy to reduce the heavy fuel buildups on federal
and adjacent lands. Some of the treatment methods used are prescribed fire, mechanical
thinning, herbicides, grazing, or a combination of them.
Under this heading you will also find funding for planning biomass utilization and forest
health protection.
• Community Assistance - Under this heading, we find State Fire Assistance, Volunteer
Fire Assistance, Rural Fire Assistance, FireWise Community Program, and Economic
Action Programs. (See the next section in this report for a more complete explanation of
these very important programs.)
• Research - Under this heading, there is full range of research projects that provide
support for all of the programs listed before.
Community Assistance Programs
The states and rural volunteer fire departments have been the recipients of federal assistance
for years. In some of the larger states, the amount has been a small percentage of their
operating dollars, but in the smaller states, the federal grants are vital to the existence of the
“state forestry” operation.
Under the National Fire Plan, the western states received over $74 million in FY 2002
(Figure 16). All of these funds come from the Community Assistance area of the USDA Forest
Service budget and the Rural Fire Assistance budget for the Department of Interior.
60

National Fire Plan Funding, by State
Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2002
Base Funding (Formula)
State Fire Assistance
Competitive Grants
Volunteer Fire Assistance Rural Fire Assistance TOTAL (2)
Alaska $335,609 3.4% $895,391 3.9% $283,657 5.1% $96,628 1.2% $1,611,285 3.5%
Arizona* $897,000 9.1% $2,221,500 9.7% $376,000 6.8% $455,750 5.7% $3,950,250 8.6%
California* $1,000,210 10.1% $937,770 4.1% $954,072 17.3% $662,000 8.3% $3,554,052 7.7%
Colorado* $994,304 10.1% $3,630,435 15.9% $669,643 12.2% $544,000 6.9% $5,838,382 12.7%
Hawaii* $380,651 3.9% $115,480 0.5% $200,599 3.6% $15,000 0.2% $711,730 1.5%
Idaho* $486,800 4.9% $3,530,700 15.5% $184,400 3.3% $935,575 11.8% $5,137,475 11.1%
Kansas $495,000 5.0% $60,000 0.3% $181,000 3.3% $33,537 0.4% $769,537 1.7%
Montana* $603,700 6.1% $1,140,067 5.0% $378,713 6.9% $854,030 10.8% $2,976,510 6.5%
Nebraska* $467,100 4.7% $28,000 0.1% $143,000 2.6% $101,416 1.3% $739,516 1.6%
Nevada* $307,000 3.1% $1,999,936 8.8% $157,681 2.9% $873,928 11.0% $3,338,545 7.2%
New Mexico $72,500 0.7% $2,110,500 9.3% $193,300 3.5% $484,517 6.1% $2,860,817 6.2%
North Dakota* $195,500 2.0% $0 0.0% $407,900 7.4% $228,597 2.9% $831,997 1.8%
Oregon $1,041,395 10.6% $2,953,209 12.9% $416,390 7.6% $816,939 10.3% $5,227,933 11.3%
South Dakota* $584,100 5.9% $346,000 1.5% $197,000 3.6% $222,000 2.8% $1,349,100 2.9%
Utah* $381,134 3.9% $427,000 1.9% $229,229 4.2% $760,000 9.6% $1,797,363 3.9%
Washington $383,395 3.9% $1,490,000 6.5% $384,221 7.0% $385,226 4.9% $2,642,842 5.7%
Wyoming* $463,000 4.7% $846,602 3.7% $151,300 2.7% $466,456 5.9% $1,927,358 4.2%
Other(1) $766,300 $80,000 0.4% $0 $0 $846,300
Total $9,854,698 $22,812,590 $5,508,105 $7,935,599 $46,110,992
$32,667,288
National Total $51,727,402
$10,419,113 $9,942,744 $72,089,259
Source: FY 2002 Performance Report - National Fire Plan, January 2003; * individual state records; (1) Guam and American Samoa, CNMI and other Pacific
Islands; (2) Not all of these funds are administered by the State Forester.
Figure 16. This is a breakdown by state, of the amounts given in 2002 from the National Fire Plan.
61

State Fire Assistance - USDA Forest Service funding will provide for technical and
financial assistance to the states to enhance firefighting capacity at the state and local levels.
This funding also supports fire hazard mitigation projects in the wildland/urban interface and
will facilitate an expanded series of FireWise workshops to help communities across the country
implement FireWise practices that reduce fire hazard. It will also support an expanded
national public service fire prevention program (Figure 17).
• Preparedness - Increases the ability of local, rural, and state organizations to provide
coordinated fire protection and mobilization for fire suppression on both federal and nonfederal
lands.
The big jump in State Fire Assistance
is due to the infusion of funds under
the National Fire Plan competitive
grants program.
• Hazard Mitigation - Supports
state-led hazard mitigation
activities in the wildland/
urban interface, focused on
reducing property loss, decreasing
fuels hazards, and increasing
public awareness and
citizen-driven solutions in rural
communities.
• Fire Prevention - Delivers a
nationwide fire prevention
program through public service
advertising, educational activities,
product licensing, and
corporate partnerships. The
Smokey Bear program is part
of this component, and Fire-
Wise is another prevention
component. FireWise is a
program that promotes wildland
fire safety in the interface
and fosters community-based
responsibility through adult
State Fire Assistance Grants
(in thousands)
FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 Total
Alaska $407 $367 $4,132 $11,881 $1,231 $18,018 21%
Arizona $158 $174 $174 $1,584 $1,315 $3,405 4%
California $309 $312 $487 $2,864 $1,923 $5,895 7%
Colorado $448 $403 $442 $2,836 $4,625 $8,754 10%
Hawaii $235 $235 $280 $451 $797 $1,998 2%
Idaho $300 $314 $328 $2,540 $4,018 $7,500 9%
Kansas $200 $200 $245 $515 $555 $1,715 2%
Montana $378 $400 $424 $1,410 $1,869 $4,481 5%
Nebraska $242 $242 $219 $446 $495 $1,644 2%
Nevada $178 $185 $202 $1,058 $1,828 $3,451 4%
New Mexico $165 $180 $231 $2,076 $2,183 $4,835 6%
North Dakota $91 $95 $99 $281 $196 $762 1%
Oregon $464 $507 $560 $2,072 $1,044 $4,647 5%
South Dakota $270 $320 $313 $984 $930 $2,817 3%
Utah $178 $185 $219 $3,130 $1,318 $5,030 6%
Washington $464 $507 $594 $3,518 $1,873 $6,956 8%
Wyoming $202 $209 $233 $1,335 $1,310 $3,289 4%
Total $4,689 $4,835 $9,182 $38,981 $27,510 $85,197
Source: USDA, Forest Service, WO
Figure 17. The 5-year history of State Fire Assistance Grants to the states in the West.
62

education, community action planning, fuel treatments, and landscaping. Twenty-four
FireWise workshops for community and business leaders have been conducted over the
last three-years. Participants will work to establish local FireWise standards to ensure a
safer place for people to live. The first twelve workshops trained 953 participants from
425 communities and 45 states.
Volunteer Fire Assistance - The Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, funded by the USDA
Forest Service, provides funds through States to volunteer fire departments serving communities
to improve communication capabilities, provide critical wildland fire management training,
Volunteer Fire Assistant Grants are
administered by the various State
Foresters.
Volunteer Fire Assistance Grants
(in thousands)
FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 Total
Alaska $31 $44 $77 $394 $284 $830 7%
Arizona $30 $30 $30 $335 $337 $762 6%
California $70 $70 $70 $118 $959 $1,287 10%
Colorado $38 $37 $61 $664 $648 $1,448 12%
Hawaii $37 $37 $55 $200 $200 $529 4%
Idaho $23 $23 $38 $345 $184 $613 5%
Kansas $44 $44 $112 $180 $181 $561 4%
Montana $40 $40 $65 $286 $379 $810 6%
Nebraska $51 $51 $83 $142 $143 $470 4%
Nevada $20 $20 $20 $193 $110 $363 3%
New Mexico $23 $23 $45 $326 $190 $607 5%
North Dakota $64 $64 $104 $336 $408 $976 8%
Oregon $33 $33 $54 $407 $415 $942 8%
South Dakota $35 $49 $79 $199 $181 $543 4%
Utah $21 $21 $39 $194 $209 $484 4%
Washington $33 $33 $53 $407 $384 $910 7%
Wyoming $16 $16 $25 $140 $151 $348 3%
Total $609 $635 $1,010 $4,866 $5,363 $12,483
Source: USDA, Forest Service, WO
Figure 18. The 5-year history of Volunteer Fire Assistance Grants for the states in the West. These grants are
administered by the State Foresters.
63

and purchase protective fire
clothing and equipment.
These departments provide, at
no cost, wildfire and emergency
protection service to
communities with populations
of under 10,000. Volunteer
Fire Departments provide
services that reach 43% of the
population, at an estimated
value of $36 billion per year
(Figure 18).
Rural Fire Assistance -
Department of the Interior
funding will be used to provide
technical assistance,
training, supplies, equipment,
and public education support
to rural fire departments, thus
enhancing firefighter safety
and strengthening wildland
fire protection capabilities
(Figure 19).
Federal Excess Property
Program - Under the Federal
Excess Personal Property
Rural Fire Assistance Grants
(in thousands)
FY2001 FY2002 Total
Alaska $75,867 $109,800 $185,667 1%
Arizona $503,871 $509,000 $1,012,871 6%
California $455,097 $662,000 $1,117,097 7%
Colorado $684,254 $544,000 $1,228,254 8%
Hawaii $25,389 $15,000 $40,389 0%
Idaho $875,085 $867,000 $1,742,085 11%
Kansas $23,364 $0 $23,364 0%
Montana $861,556 $844,000 $1,705,556 11%
Nebraska $102,985 $267,000 $369,985 2%
Nevada $875,429 $865,000 $1,740,429 11%
New Mexico $367,594 $499,000 $866,594 5%
North Dakota $256,317 $0 $256,317 2%
Oregon $751,238 $1,035,000 $1,786,238 11%
South Dakota $296,411 $222,000 $518,411 3%
Utah $765,620 $790,000 $1,555,620 10%
Washington $304,226 $790,000 $1,094,226 7%
Wyoming $433,284 $434,000 $867,284 5%
Other $0 $0 0%
Total $7,657,587 $8,452,800 $16,110,387
Figure 19. The Rural Fire Assistance Grant program is under the
various agencies in the Department of the Interior. Some of the grants
are administered by the agencies directly; some in coordination with
the State Foresters.
(FEPP) program, Federal property, originally purchased for use by a Federal agency, but no
longer needed by that entity, is acquired by the USDA Forest Service for loan to one of the 50
States for use in the State’s rural or wildland fire protection program. As a result, the equipment
stays in service to America, protecting lives and property across the nation.
64

The “personal” part of the FEPP program simply refers to any tangible property that is not
real estate. This can include trucks, aircraft, personal protective equipment, motor oil, nuts,
bolts, fire hose, et cetera, but not buildings.
The State Forester makes the initial decision that an FEPP item is appropriate for use, and
the USDA Forest Service must concur. The property is then loaned to the State Forester, who
may then place it with local departments to improve local fire programs. Approximately 70% of
the property involved in the Forest Service FEPP program is sub-loaned to local fire departments
(Figure 20).
FireWise - The National Fire Plan has dedicated $5 million (FY 2001-2003) for development
and delivery of the FireWise Program. Actually a suite of complementary programs,
The Federal Excess Property Program
has been invaluable for the states and
rural fire departments.
Federal Excess Property Program Acquisition, by State
State FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 5-year Total 5-year Average
Alaska $472,689 $1,132,986 $1,804,555 $1,176,223 $4,586,454 $917,291
Arizona $306,676 $541,210 $231,693 $479,612 $1,559,191 $311,838
California $29,740,724 $10,103,896 $26,425,137 $19,104,371 $7,527,042 $92,901,169 $18,580,234
Colorado $770,471 $570,910 $350,224 $1,505,652 $104,561 $3,301,818 $660,364
Hawaii $77,717 $489,785 $684,193 $1,251,695 $250,339
Idaho $1,395,417 $2,115,519 $897,966 $373,926 $1,828,383 $6,611,212 $1,322,242
Kansas $1,983,801 $1,353,692 $181,622 $450,728 $5,585,378 $9,555,221 $1,911,044
Montana $1,433,422 $7,256,509 $2,081,025 $476,441 $4,448,824 $15,696,221 $3,139,244
Nebraska $896,080 $680,035 $217,002 $1,972,794 $3,765,911 $753,182
Nevada $1,725,782 $542,918 $1,292,185 $162,466 $3,723,352 $744,670
New Mexico $465,902 $362,556 $763,884 $695,499 $377,019 $2,664,861 $532,972
North Dakota $559,836 $178,682 $660,359 $94,825 $118,727 $1,612,429 $322,486
Oregon $3,414,282 $4,406,797 $3,883,436 $1,649,154 $1,098,415 $14,452,084 $2,890,417
South Dakota $30,888 $1,116,019 $2,910,912 $78,033 $100,753 $4,236,605 $847,321
Utah $1,641,095 $623,966 $662,857 $1,249,855 $523,243 $4,701,017 $940,203
Washington $4,016,167 $5,849,680 $6,528,742 $3,150,722 $2,715,446 $22,260,757 $4,452,151
Wyoming $500 $686,280 $342,712 $247,679 $625,158 $1,902,329 $380,466
Guam and other
Pacific Islands $241,833 $62,835 $124,168 $37,664 $466,500 $93,300
Total $49,173,282 $37,584,493 $49,017,309 $31,246,530 $28,227,212 $195,248,825 $39,049,765
Figure 20. The value of FEPP to the states and rural fire departments cannot really be measured. This is a
historical picture of the value of the materials loaned to the states in the West.
65

FireWise is aimed at informing the community spectrum - homeowners, firefighters and builders
to landscapers, insurance agents and public officials - about the concept of FireWise living.
Program components include the following:
• FireWise Website (www.FireWise.org): Representing a successful partnership of private
and government agencies, this site averages 150,000 hits a month.
FireWise is one of the National Fire
Plan programs that has the potential
for long-term impacts.
• Communication Tools such as publications and videos: FireWise concepts on landscaping,
building, firefighter safety and other topics are available online as well as through
other outlets. The latest project is a television documentary called “Keepers of the Flame,”
which puts America’s fire history and wildland/urban interface fire problem in context.
• Workshops, Training Sessions and Demonstration Events: These activities are focused
on reducing fire risk to property and lives through better community design and retrofit,
and preparedness planning.
• Technical Assistance to Communities: As FireWise spreads across
the country, more communities are looking to program organizers for
help. This component includes ArcView mapping technology.
• FireWise Communities USA Recognition Program: Communities
can earn national status for their work to improve planning for mitigation
of fire hazards. Currently, there are 11 geographically diverse pilot
communities in the recognition program, which will be officially
unveiled in late 2003. Nationwide, there are thousands of communities
with wildland/urban interface areas.
FireWise Communities Workshop Series - Launched in the fall of 1999,
the FireWise Communities Workshop Series is an integral part of the FireWise Program. With
more than 30 stakeholder groups – federal agencies, national organizations and private companies
as sponsors – the series offers more than two-dozen national workshops across the country
through 2003. Invited to each are the people who can truly influence the way an area is planned,
built, maintained and protected. To date, 953 community stakeholders from 425 communities
in 45 states have attended these regionally based workshops. By project’s end, more than 2,000
community leaders will have participated. Another 2,500 are expected to attend the spin-off
66

workshops that are occurring (50+ to date) in the states hosting national workshops. National
participants are provided with a wealth of FireWise material, including the computer-aided
workshop exercise that allows these leaders to talk in small groups about the complexities of
creating a FireWise Community. For more information about the series, visit the FireWise
Communities website at www.FireWise.org/communities.
Thousands of people have a better
understanding of the wildland/urban
interface fire problem after attending
a FireWise workshop.
67

Competitive Grants
The National Fire Plan funded fuel reduction programs for areas that were classified as
being in the wildland/urban interface. As a means to get these funds to the states, the USDA
Forest Service decided to use an existing mechanism, that of the State Fire Assistance grants.
The competitive grants program has
been an important step at reducing
the wildland/urban interface problem.
At least in the short term.
Historically, the USDA Forest Service used a formula to allocate the funds to the states, so
as the annual allocation moved up or down, each of the states was treated equally. Every once in
a while, a member of Congress was able to place special rules that dictated a special allocation;
the most recent one was an augmentation to the State of Alaska related to bug kill on the Kenni
Peninsula.
to:
To facilitate the allocation for the wildland/urban interface grants, the rules were changed
• Allocate 25% of the State Fire Assistance allocation to the states using the formula. This
provided funds at a similar level as in the past. It should be noted here, that the percentage
for the formula allocations will jump to 35% in federal fiscal year 2003. This was done to
allow the states to have more discretionary authority on how the funds could be used.
• The remaining funds were then allocated on a competitive basis. Each state would
provide a list of projects that they would like to conduct, using these funds.
The Council of Western State Foresters gave the responsibility of developing the list of
qualifying projects to their fire managers. A subcommittee of the Western State Fire Managers
then would meet, reviewing the hundreds of applications to determine if they met the requirements,
their completeness, etc. A list of projects was then prepared and submitted to the Council
for approval and submission to the USDA Forest Service.
The legislation allowed funds to be expended on several types of projects. They included:
• Hazardous Fuel Reduction - Fuel reduction projects and vegetation treatments have
been identified as a means of mitigating wildfire hazards. Projects of this type included
fuel breaks, thinning, pruning, landscape modifications, etc.
68

• Information and Education - In the wildland/urban interface homeowners and local
government should bear much of the responsibility for improving the defensibility of
homes and other buildings. The plan was to develop programs that would help educate the
general public and local government officials on what has to be done to provide a permanent
“fix” to this problem. Some qualifying projects would include FireWise or similar
projects, defensible space around homes and structures, shaded fuel breaks, fuels reduction
beyond defensible space, etc.
• Homeowner and Community Actions - Creating conditions in and round individual
structures and communities that would limit the “transmission” of fire between the wildland
and the structures. These types of projects could include safety inspections, demonstration
projects, training and education for homeowners, planners and fire service personnel,
etc.
• Planning and/or Assessment Projects - These projects identify values in the wildland/
urban interface that are important to protect. Qualifying projects could include county or
community planning, hazard fuel mapping projects, etc.
• Monitoring - These projects generally would document the status of the projects listed
above.
There were several projects that were submitted, but automatically rejected. Some of the
more common examples are: the purchase of fire equipment and apparatus, start up funding of a
small business, research and development, and fire preparedness and suppression capacity
building.
Information and education has the
greatest long-term impacts.
The most common NFP projects:
• Public Education
• Fuel Breaks
• Mechanical Thinning
• Defensible Space
As with most competitive grant programs, the final success is based on several factions. In
this case, these were some of the influences:
• Availability of Funds - Congress did not appropriate the funds needed to complete all of
the desired projects.
• Application was rejected because it was not complete, not on time or for a project that
did not qualify.
• Higher priority projects available.
69

Communities at Risk
Since the National Fire Plan sets a priority for action on the protection of communities,
such communities have to be identified.
At least 22,000 communities in the
nation are considered to be in the
wildland/urban interface.
The wildland/urban interface occurs where human structures (e.g., homes, businesses,
agricultural buildings, recreational facilities) meet or intermix with wildland vegetation. At
times the wildland vegetation may pose a fire hazard because of its flammability or an unusually
high accumulation of plant material or fuel. The accumulation of wildland fuel around and
within communities in the wildland/urban interface poses a significant fire hazard.
Most states completed the standardized process or a comparable
process for identifying communities at risk, and 11,376 communities
were identified in the vicinity of federal lands. The first attempt to
identify the communities at risk was published in the Federal Register in
August 2001.
States and tribes submitted names of 22,127 communities, which
included communities in the vicinity of lands managed by the Departments
of Agriculture and the Interior and communities in the vicinity of
state and other lands. For those in the vicinity of federal lands, 1,864
communities have projects planned near them. Additional funding is
necessary to make an impact on the remaining communities. Most communities submitted by
the states and tribes are eligible for funds appropriated to State & Private Forestry programs
within the Forest Service, regardless of the communities’ relationship to federal lands.
The revised list offers several insights into the national scope of the wildland/urban interface
communities. This information better illustrates the relationship between federal lands and
the interface problem in the United States. This list will provide an important tool for use at the
state level to focus attention on vulnerable areas, and to aid state and federal agencies in collaborative
efforts to work in areas of local importance and where opportunities are most conducive
to reducing risks on a meaningful scale. Because a number of communities submitted by
the states are not published here, it must NOT be assumed that the list portrays a complete
national picture of the wildland/urban interface areas at risk for all land ownerships.
70

The information contained in the revised list helps interagency groups of land managers at
the state and/or tribal level to collaboratively identify priority areas within their jurisdictions
that would benefit from hazard reduction projects. The revised list offered an opportunity to
partner with states and tribes, which is a central feature of the National Fire Plan.
Developing relationships with partners has resulted in more comprehensive information
that better reflects the relationship between federal lands and the interface problem in the
United States. This collaborative effort to identify communities at risk from wildfire has more
clearly demonstrated the wildland/urban interface problem across the United States. In many
states, this process fostered important steps in federal, state, and local cooperation to identify
areas of concern and planned actions. Many states will continue the collaborative process with
federal agencies and tribes, to better focus hazard mitigation efforts and set priorities for communities
at the state and local level. Working together is a long-term investment, and the listing
process was just one of many joint projects. Project implementation will involve federal land
management agencies, state foresters, tribes, and communities in planning and implementing
wildfire hazard/risk reduction projects, carrying out FireWise projects, and identifying local
contractors for thinning, reforestation, or other National Fire Plan projects.
During the listing process, there were several concerns raised by the states about the
process. The FY 2001 Appropriations Act for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
requires only the listing of communities in the vicinity of federal lands. Listing only those
communities does not adequately portray the extent and complexity of the issue. Wildland/
urban interface issues need to be dealt with on a state level basis, not just in the vicinity of
federal lands. Great concern has been noted on how the list will be used. There are concerns
that the list will be used to allocate funds and firefighting resources without regard to other
factors – this is untrue. There is a perception that completing a project in the vicinity of a
community at risk will fully mitigate the hazard. Hazard mitigation for many communities will
require significant effort through multiple projects, and must be an ongoing multi-year process.
Identifying and prioritizing
communities at risk is a collaborative
process.
Six states had NFP projects that
were impacted by wildfire in 2002.
During the 2000 fire season wildfires burned millions of acres throughout the United
States. These fires dramatically illustrated the threat to human lives and development. Under
Executive Order, the National Fire Plan was created as a cooperative, long-term effort of the
USDA Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and the National Association of State Foresters,
to protect communities and restore ecological health on Federal lands.
71

A major component of the National Fire Plan was funding for projects designed to
reduce fire risks to people and their property. A fundamental step in realizing this goal was the
identification of areas that are at high risk of damage from wildfire. Federal fire managers
authorized State Foresters to determine which communities were under significant risk from
wildland fire on Federal lands.
Identifying the communities at risk is
a state responsibility.
A Better Definition
The Fire Committee of the National Association of State Foresters did not like the
process of how communities at risk were identified. They started to develop a new and more
meaningful definition of what a community at risk really was. Since California has been dealing
with this issue for over 40 years, they asked the State Forester to work on this issue.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) undertook the task of
generating the state’s list of communities at risk. With California’s extensive wildland-urban
interface situation the list of communities extends well beyond just those on federal lands.
Three main factors were used to determine wildland fire threat areas of California:
11 states undertook cooperative
projects with other agencies.
• Ranking Fuel Hazards - ranking vegetation types by their potential fire behavior during
a wildfire. The fuels are what brings the fire to the structure. Some are more hazardous
than others.
• Assessing the Probability of Fire - the annual likelihood that a large damaging wildfire
would occur in a particular vegetation type. There are places in the nation where homes
have existed in the wildlands and have never been threatened by a wildland fire. Conversely,
there are homes in some areas, like Southern California, where certain home sites
have been destroyed several times in the last twenty years.
• Defining Areas of Suitable Housing Density that Would Create Wildland/Urban
Interface Fire Protection Strategy Situations - areas of intermingled wildland fuels and
urban environments that are in the vicinity of fire threats.
The Fire-Threatened Communities in California list includes a total of 1,283 communities. Of
those, 843 are adjacent to federal lands (USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
72

Department of Defense, etc.) and are indicated as such
with an “F” in the Fed. Threat column. The Hazard
Level Code included on the list designates a
community’s fire threat
level with three indicating
the highest threat. The
adoption of a meaningful
definition of “communities
at risk” is paramount.
Unless all of the states
adopt a uniform definition,
they run the risk of losing
funding from the National
level.
One of the problems confronting the various state and federal
agencies is that, once identified, how do you go about taking a
community “off the list.” The reality is that very few communities at
risk will ever be “protected” to the point that they are no longer at
risk. The actions taken to date are short term fixes at best. Fuel
reduction work is only as good as the
continued maintenance. Solutions to
the problem are long term and require
that homes being constructed
be resistant to ignition. “Steel
homes” like this one are not practical,
but there are things that can be
done to decrease the odds of a house
becoming a statistic. FireWise and
building code regulations are the long
term solution.
73

A Community at Risk - Flagstaff, Arizona
One of the features of the National Fire Plan process has been the creation of a list of all
the “communities at risk” in the wildland/urban interface adjacent to federal lands. This list
now totals some 11,376 communities, many of which are political additions where wildfire risk
is really minimal. If there ever was a large community that meets the original intent of compiling
such a list, Flagstaff is it.
Located at an elevation of almost 7,000 feet, Flagstaff sits at the base of the scenic San
Francisco Peaks, which tower more than a mile above the city skyline. With a population of
53,000 Flagstaff is a growing, vibrant community that sits at the intersection of Interstates 40
and 17, close enough to the Grand Canyon to reap the economic benefits of the tourist traffic, as
well as the urban conundrum of too much traffic. Home to Northern Arizona University, which
has a strong forestry school and is home to Ecological Restoration Institute, the community has
a strong environmental conscience and great appreciation for the natural beauty and resources
surrounding it. This community
already had several significant
forest stewardship and fire
hazard reduction projects going,
and was well positioned to take
full advantage of new funding
available from the National Fire
Plan.
Flagstaff is a classic wildland/urban
interface community.
Fire History
Nestled in the Ponderosa
Pine forest, Flagstaff is practically
surrounded by wildlands.
The drought and bugs have killed
a high percentage of the forests
in this area (Figure 21). The
Kaibab National Forest to the
north and west spreads toward
the Grand Canyon. The
Figure 21. 25 to 30 percent of the pine trees around Flagstaff are dead
due to drought and bugs.
75

Coconino National Forest surrounds the city. Several parcels of state forest lands border the
southwest side of town, intermixed with Forest Service and private lands in the familiar checkerboard
pattern so common in the West. These public lands, which constitute a fire-dependent
ecosystem, have a long and colorful fire history which has been well documented and studied.
The Radio Fire burned in June 1977.
For many residents of Flagstaff, modern fire history began with the Radio Fire in June of
1977, which burned across the south face of Mount Elden, just to the north of the City, leaving
many residents with a viewshed composed primarily of white tree skeletons. Started by a
runaway teenager’s escaped campfire, the Radio Fire frustrated the efforts of the initial attack
fire forces by leaping into the tops of the pine trees and roaring up the mountain in a matter of a
few minutes as a nearly continuous crown fire. The FS lookout tower on Mount Elden was
hastily abandoned, and the fire burned down the telephone lines to the mountaintop radio
facilities, creating communications problems for the fire suppression forces. Some homes were
threatened and there were some precautionary evacuations. A similar fire today would threaten
many more homes.
The Radio Fire burned so hot that it completely transformed the landscape from pine with
oak on the south and east slopes to only brush and scrub oak today. Soil damage and microclimate
changes have prevented the ponderosa pine from coming back on much of that fire site.
Both the forest that burned, and the brush fields that have replaced it are very different from the
historical pine forest of the Southwest. The presettlement ponderosa pine forest probably had
10-12 very large trees per acre, many 500 years old or older. The forest that burned in 1977,
following years of logging and fire suppression, probably had 150-200 trees per acre, with a
heavy component of dead litter on the forest floor.
This condition is typical of today, and the result is that fires now burn more intensely, are
harder to put out, and do more damage than the fires of old. In the 1950’s the average annual
burn in the Forest Service’s Southwest Region was about 38,000 acres. By the 1990’s the
annual average had increased to 112,000 acres. In 2002, one wildfire burned four times that
much acreage. Around Flagstaff, the major fires have gotten bigger each decade also. In the
1950’s, the biggest fire was less than 2,000 acres. By the 1970’s, fires were ranging from 3,500
to 7,000 acres. In the 1990’s, fires of 8,000 to 16,000 acres had become the norm.
76

The Wildland/Urban Interface
Arizona is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, as many refugees from the snow
country move to the desert for their retirement years. Increasing home values allow more
residents of the desert to move to or build summer homes in the mountains, where summer
days, and especially nights, are cooler. As Flagstaff continues to grow, with new subdivisions
winding through the trees in every direction, the wildland/urban interface continues to grow
(180,000 acres), and to become
more complex (Figure 22).
This interface does not just
extend 60 or 100 feet from the
last house, but really extends for
miles across jurisdictional and
property boundaries, making the
“values at risk” from wildfire
values that are shared by the
entire community. Some of the
values that could be affected by a
major fire in the Flagstaff area
include: public health, recreation,
water, wildlife, real estate
and personal property, scenic and
economic values, as well as the
emotional and spiritual health of
the entire community. A serious
wildfire could destroy the vitality
and strangle the growth of this
vibrant community.
Community Partnership Seeks
Forest Health
The Greater Flagstaff
Forests Partnership
(www.gffp.org) is an alliance of
23 academic, environmental,
Figure 22. This map shows partnership areas in the Flagstaff,
Arizona area.
77
Community Partnerships are
important.
www.gffp.org

usiness, and government organizations in the community that is dedicated to testing and
adapting new approaches to restoring forest ecosystem health in the Flagstaff area. Its goals
include restoring natural ecosystem composition, structure, and function to the ponderosa pine
forests; managing forest fuels to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire; and to study and
document the key ecological, economic, and social dimensions of forest health restoration
efforts.
Flagstaff facts:
180,000 acres in wildland/urban
interface;
5,400 acres thinned;
2,250 acres burned;
7,000 acres planned;
11,000 acres under study; and
68 research projects.
Key elements of the Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership include:
• A framework for restoring forest ecosystems
• A strong scientific foundation for all activities
• Testing a variety of approaches
• Extensive research and monitoring
The partnership has seven
major forest restoration projects
underway in the greater Flagstaff
area following a nineteen-month
delay as the result of litigation
(Figure 23). Thinning of trees in
the overstocked wildland/urban
interface is one of the top fire
hazard reduction priorities, with
11 different types of treatment
being utilized. By 2002, some
1,900 acres of FS land and 3,500
acres of city and state lands have
been thinned. Prescribed burning
has been accomplished on 1,750
acres of city, state, and private
lands, as well as another 500
acres of FS land. Some 7,000
Figure 23. The National Fire Plan funded this cooperative operation
to reduce the fire hazard.
78

acres in the community are being intensively managed for forest health restoration. Environmental
analysis on an additional 24,000 acres has identified about 11,000 acres of additional
potential treatment area. There are 68 different research projects underway within the partnership,
many under the umbrella of the Ecological Restoration Institute. The partnership has
recently published a reference guide to all the various research projects to encourage information
sharing among various disciplines.
The projects cover a wide range of topics and ideas in addition to just fire hazard reduction.
Included are such activities as determining the economic feasibility of utilizing the small
diameter pines trees that must be harvested for such things as elk exclusion fences to protect
springs and streams while riparian vegetation regrows, or, as fuel for a biomass electric power
plant.
A State Fire Assistance Grant got
Flagstaff started.
Federal Funds Helpful
The Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership received a $45,000 grant of State Fire Assistance
funds from the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) for the planning and public education
parts of the start-up process that were so critical to developing a framework for forest health
restoration that enjoys broad public support.
State Fire Assistance funds have also enabled the ASLD Fire Management Division to
continue to be an important contributor to the success of the forest health restoration efforts in
Flagstaff, despite the current climate of state budget cuts and hiring freezes.
National Fire Plan funds enable the funding of hazard reduction and prescribed fire crews
of the ASLD, Coconino NF, and Flagstaff Fire Department (FFD) which work cooperatively to
accomplish projects that link across ownership boundaries to achieve strategic fire hazard
reduction goals. NFP funds enable hazard reduction projects to take place on private ownerships
that may not otherwise be able to afford to do the work and which could become weak links in
the chain of fire hazard reduction projects.
Grant funds enabled the acquisition of the pole peeler used to make thinned small diameter
pine trees into poles for the elk exclusion fence that protects a restored spring at Fort Tuthill
County Park, one of the cooperators in the partnership and a useful public education demonstration
area (Figure 24).
79

Corporate and community service
clubs can provide valuable assistance.
Corporate sponsorships,
community service club donations,
public donations, and
private property landowner
efforts have all been leveraged to
accomplish much more than any
one agency could ever undertake.
Throughout the community,
significant progress is being
made to restore forest health,
reduce the potential for catastrophic
fires, and make the
greater Flagstaff area a better
place to live, now and in the
future.
Figure 24. Federal matching funds were used to reduce the fuel
loading hazard and construct this elk fence.
Urban Watershed at Risk – Denver
The Hayman Fire, a man-caused forest fire, ravaged much of the critical South Platte River
watershed, the source of as much as 80% of the water for the rapidly growing Denver metropolitan
area. Combined with a continuing serious drought in the Rocky Mountain Front Range,
the loss of thousands of acres of forest could force major water conservation measures, especially
if high intensity rains cause heavy siltation in Cheesman Reservoir.
Cheesman Reserve is a critical watershed southwest of Denver that includes Cheesman
and Strontia Springs reservoirs on the South Platte River. Besides being a primary water source
for a major urban area, the forests of the reserve were also an important recreation resource for
many urban residents. The South Platte River is a blue-ribbon trout stream and the reservoirs
are magnets for fisherman. Hikers, hunters, and others have used the forests of the reserve for
decades (Figure 25).
80

Denver Water, in cooperation
with the Colorado State Forest
Service (CSFS) has managed the
land as a multiple use forest, with
water production and quality being
the primary concern. The agencies
had developed a comprehensive
plan to treat the watershed to
reduce fuel loading and improve
forest health. Several areas had
been treated and more projects
were on the schedule.
Unfortunately, the Hayman
Fire burned under conditions of
severe drought, heavy fuel loading,
and high fire danger sweeping
Figure 25. Thinned and burned pine forest in Colorado.
across most of the watershed as a crown fire, resulting in severe fire damage to the forest. For miles
upon end, no tree, bush, or blade of grass survived the conflagration of 2002. In the critical
Cheesman Reservoir area, the only green pine trees left after the passage of the wildfire across
thousands of acres of pine forest were in a narrow band around the edge of the reservoir where
vegetation had been thinned to enhance recreation, in the area burned by a previous forest fire in the
60’s, and in the area of a fuel reduction project funded in part by a NFP grant. The vast majority of
the forest looks like a nuclear wasteland (Figure 26).
The Hayman Fire damaged the Denver
watershed for years.
The predominant soil type in the area is decomposed granite, which is very coarse and unstable.
On steep slopes denuded of vegetative cover this soil erodes readily. Even after light summer rain
showers, ash flows choked intermittent streams and mud flows overran temporary erosion barriers
hastily placed by Denver Water. The agency has spent millions of dollars in post fire rehabilitation
efforts to try to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation of the reservoirs, but much of this
effort could be ineffective in the face of an intense winter/spring rainstorm. The potential exists for
mudflows to cause so much silt to flow in to Cheesman Reservoir that the intakes for the water
system could be covered over and the water system rendered inoperable. Even without heavy rains
this first winter, fire damage to the soil surface is so severe in many areas and so few seed sources
remain that effectively reforesting this critical watershed will take many years and be very
expensive (Figure 27).
81

Many communities rely on surface
water supplies.
Seven states reported major fires in
critial urban watersheds in 2002.
This is but one of hundreds
of urban water supplies that are
at risk in the wildland-urban
interface, especially in the West.
Many communities rely on
surface storage in reservoirs
located in nearby watersheds for
most of their domestic water.
During drought conditions,
inflow to the reservoirs is reduced
while at the same time the
fire danger in the surrounding
watershed increases. Wildfires
can destroy the vegetative cover
in whole watersheds, producing a
fire-flood sequence of events that
result in increased siltation of the
reservoirs, pollution of the water
supply, and in severe cases, the
destruction of the whole water
system.
The Hayman Fire and its
impact on the Denver water
system are worth looking at as
harbingers of what many communities
may face as the wildfire
problem in the wildland-urban
interface escalates and water
shortages proliferate in the West.
Figure 26. The Hayman Fire burn area.
82
Figure 27. Straw bale check dams in Hayman Fire above reservoir.

The Hayman Fire
Fire conditions along the Rocky Mountain Front Range in Colorado in the summer of 2002
were as bad as or worse than at any time in recorded climatological data. A meager winter snow
pack in the mountains was followed by the failure of the summer “monsoon” rain pattern to
develop over the Southwest. By summer, the drought conditions were fifty percent worse than
the historic worst drought conditions, which occurred in 1851. The fuel moisture in hundredhour
fuels on the Pike-San Isabel National Forests was measured at 9 percent. At this stage of
drought, even large old trees have lost their ability to resist fire and whole forests are subject to
stand-replacing wildfires.
The Hayman Fire started on June 8, 2002 at 1600 hours near a campground on the Pike
National Forest. It was a human-caused fire, set by a U.S. Forest Service employee using a
paper torch. The fire spread immediately and rapidly out of the campground, despite early
detection and reporting, and despite an aggressive initial attack (Figure 28).
By now a raging inferno, the Hayman Fire raced through five miles of the Cheesman
Reserve in less than 1½ hours,
sometimes reaching speeds of up
to 85 miles per hour. Of the
8,200 acres burned on the reserve,
more than half (4,594
acres) burned at high intensity,
killing all vegetative cover and
severely damaging the surface
soil layer. Only 206 acres of the
reserve escaped the effects of the
fire.
Hayman Fire facts:
137,760 acres;
133 homes lost;
466 other structures lost;
$40 million to suppress; and
$36 million rehab costs.
The fire was not contained
until July 2, 2002 after burning
137,760 acres of Ponderosa Pine
and mixed conifer forest in four
Colorado counties. It was not
declared under control until July
18, 2002. The Hayman Fire, the
Figure 28. The Hayman Fire burned over 137,000 acres in four
counties of Colorado.
83

Figure 29. The rehabilitation cost $36 million. Note that the greatest burn severity was in the north,
in the Denver watershed.
largest wildfire in Colorado history, destroyed 133 residences, 466 outbuildings, and one commercial
building and cost more than $40 million to suppress. Additional millions have and are
being spent on burned area emergency rehabilitation and to prevent damage to Denver’s water
system facilities (Figures 29 and 30).
84
The Ponderosa Pine Forest
The ecosystems and landscape of the Front
Range have changed considerably over the last 150
years, as the influences of a variety of human activities
have taken effect. Large wildfires and epidemics
of insect and disease damages are becoming more
common. Logging, overgrazing, and fire exclusion
have resulted in younger, denser forests with thick
undergrowth which makes the forest more susceptible
to catastrophic wildfires.
The forest is a living community of species
where trees are dominant. Ponderosa is the most
widely distributed pine in the US and can adapt to a
wide range of ecological conditions. It frequently
starts to appear at the transition from hotter, drier
grass and brush lands to cooler, moisture climates
and ranges from California to the Dakotas. Ponderosa
Pine communities exist throughout the Colorado
Front Range at elevations from 5,000 to 9,000 feet.
At lower elevations Ponderosa is frequently the only
conifer present, but at higher elevations or in moist
canyons other species such as Lodgepole Pine,
Douglas Fir, and Quaking Aspen may be found
intermixed with the Ponderosa Pines. The Ponderosa Pine forest supports a great variety of
plant and animal species, some of which are now classified as rare, threatened, or endangered.
The Ponderosa Pine forests of the mid 1800’s consisted of fewer, larger trees spaced some
distance apart. Recent research suggests that the crown closure in the mature forest was only
about 30 percent and that 25-40 percent of the forest was open meadows. Fairly frequent low-

intensity forest fires reduced ground litter build-up, released soil
nutrients bound in vegetation, destroyed competing vegetation, prevented
intrusion by undesirable species, and lessened the chance of
epidemic disease and insect outbreaks. Fires occurred regularly, but
were not able to climb into the crowns due to lack of ladder fuels in
the understory. Due to the lack of crown closure, fires seldom spread
across whole stands of trees as crown fires.
The Ponderosa Pine forests began to be heavily logged in the late
1800’s, with the majority of the large, mature pines being taken for
lumber. Remaining slash was broadcast burned, adding to the site
disturbance created by logging. During the early 1900’s (and especially
in 1910 during the “Big Blow-up”), vast areas of western forests
were ravaged by catastrophic wildfires feeding on the slash left by
indiscriminate logging. These conflagrations created a demand for
increased fire protection, leading eventually to the 10 a.m. containment
policy that dominated fire protection philosophy for much of the
1900’s. Fewer fires were allowed to burn in the forests, and the
forests grew denser.
In the pre-settlement forest, fires
seldom spread across whole stands
as crown fires.
Much forest land in the West is
overcrowded, undermanaged, and
overprotected.
These sites disturbed by logging or fire became seedbeds that
supported large numbers of new pine seedlings. In areas where not
enough seed trees were left, the soil also was ready to support large
numbers of other species, frequently brush and less-desirable hardwood
tree species. The second generation forest that grew back was
more diverse and much more crowded. This second generation forest
was also little managed until the supply of old growth timber began to
run low. By the 1980’s much of the forest land in the West was
overcrowded, undermanaged, and overprotected.
At the same time the forest was getting thicker, so were people.
The population of the West continued to increase dramatically, with
new homes and communities pushing constantly onto what used to be
forest lands. This juxtaposition of man’s structures and the forest has
come to be known as the “Wildland/Urban Interface” and it is the
85

primary concern of fire protection experts in the new millennium. Each
year, somewhere in the West, large wildfires threaten or destroy hundreds
of structures, and sometimes even whole towns. The increasing population
has also generated greater demands for protection of the environment,
resulting in a sharp decline in logging and greatly increased costs for
lumber. Today, many competing, and frequently conflicting, special
interest groups make managing the wildlands extremely complicated. Our
litigious society has made it more difficult to use prescribed fire without
some form of protection from liability, limiting our capability to restore
the forest to a healthy condition. Too many voices clamor for the protection
of a favorite species at the expense of the health of the total ecosystem.
Much work is needed to restore forest health, a condition which will
benefit most species, including human beings, in the long run. A healthy
forest provides wood, water, wildlife, and recreation. A decadent forest
provides increased opportunity for devastating wildfires.
Protecting Watersheds
The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS), Denver Water Board, and
the U.S. Forest Service have formed a partnership to protect and restore
threatened forest watersheds along the South Platte River. Several locations
have been identified as being at high risk for catastrophic losses from
fire, insects, or disease. Projects have been designed and funded to restore
forest health, including a demonstration site at Trumbull. This area was
carefully harvested (logged) during the winter of 2000/2001 to achieve
several objectives: recreate natural openings, encourage new plant growth
in browse species for deer and elk, create grassy meadows with wildflowers
used by a R&E butterfly, create uneven-aged timber stands that are
more resistant to insect and disease epidemics, increase the diversity of
plant species, and reduce the potential for high intensity wildfires (Figure
31).
Figure 30. The Hayman Fire burned over 137,000 acres; most of it in the Denver
watershed.
This effort is a start toward reducing the potential for large, damaging
wildfires such as the Buffalo Creek Fire of 1996, which although it only
86

urned 12,000 acres and only destroyed about a dozen homes, had disastrous consequences for
the watershed. In the two years following this fire, the watershed experienced 13 so-called
“100-year flood” events, resulting in massive erosion, siltation of streams, and recurring damage
to water system facilities costing federal, state, and local taxpayers millions of dollars to
repair.
Unfortunately, the Hayman Fire occurred before very much of the landscape at risk could
receive treatment. The Hayman Fire did burn into the area of the Polhemus prescribed burn
conducted in the fall of 2001.
Unfortunately, the prescribed fire
did not burn hot enough to
substantially reduce the presence
of ladder fuels, and thus did not
significantly reduce the intensity
of the Hayman Fire. The
Hayman Fire also ran into the
area burned by the Schoonover
Fire the previous month, which
split the head of the fire, compounding
suppression difficulties.
These events reinforce the
need to assure that fuel modification
projects are properly designed,
situated, and executed to
achieve strategic goals.
Figure 31. Thinned and burned pine forest in Colorado.
The Forest Service and
Denver Water have already spent millions of dollars in rehabilitation of the burned area and in
measures designed to minimize erosion and siltation of the reservoir. Much more money will
have to be spent to reforest the watershed, with salvage logging of the burned timber providing
little cost offset. Even without a major flood situation, the cost of the Hayman Fire to the
people of the Denver area will continue to increase in the coming years. In the event a major
(or multiple serious) flood occurs, a significant portion of the Denver water system is at risk of
damage or destruction.
87

Who Really Benefits From Watershed Fire Protection
In the arid West, water is a valuable commodity. So valuable that local, state, and federal
governments all heavily subsidize the development, transportation, distribution, and treatment
of water. A variety of users benefit from the complex system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines
that move water from the mountain watersheds to developed areas.
Nearly everybody benefits from
watershed fire protection.
The majority of the water in the West is used by agriculture for the production of food and
fiber. Vast areas of arid land grow multiple crops during long growing seasons, using 137
billion gallons of water a day. Farm animals and aquaculture (fish farming) account for only
about 3% of the total agricultural water demand. Power plants use 130 billion gallons a day, not
counting the billions more gallons used by hydroelectric plants, then returned to streams. Industry
uses 36 billion gallons a day; commercial users account for another 8 billion gallons. A
typical U.S. household uses about one hundred gallons of water a day – per person, another 25
billion gallons.
All of these downstream water users benefit from watershed fire protection in addition to
the direct users of the watersheds such as hikers, boaters, hunters, and fishermen. Adequate
supplies of good quality water are critical to the success of most of mankind’s endeavors.
Properly managed forest lands produce more and better quality water than overstocked decadent
forests or than severely burned forest lands.
Some of the characteristics of the current generation of overstocked, decadent forests
include:
• Individual trees and shrubs are more easily stressed due to lack of water in dry years due
to the effects of over competition for water on crowded sites.
• The dead to live fuel ratio is higher, making the forest subject to higher intensity
wildfires.During drought years, heavy die-back adds more dead fuel.
• Stand density (fuel loading) is so high that prescribed fire cannot be safely used.
• There is greater risk of insect and disease epidemics.
88

• Water production is lower, as more trees use more water.
• Marginal streams are more likely to go dry, endangering aquatic life.
• There is greater risk of flooding and erosion after high intensity fires have killed the
majority of the vegetation in any watershed.
After a high intensity forest fire, the potential exists for major flooding and serious erosion
which can damage roads, bridges, reservoirs, water and sewage systems as well as homes and
businesses far downstream. Because we are all taxpayers, we all pay for both the direct costs of
putting out large, damaging forest fires and the indirect costs of repairing and replacing the
infrastructure damaged by post-fire floods, erosion, and landslides. Therefore, we would all
benefit from efforts to restore forest health, reduce the potential for high intensity wildfires, and
improve the volume and quality of water produced by our forests.
All taxpayers benefit from healthy
forests.
The National Fire Plan – A Coordinated Approach
Kootenai County, Idaho
As the National Fire Plan began to take shape, Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of
Fire Management personnel recognized an opportunity to help Idaho avoid more disastrous fire
seasons like that of 2000. Already engaged in a significant cooperative effort with the federal
wildland fire agencies to mitigate fire risk, especially in the wildland/urban interface, they
focused a good deal of effort on bringing other possible players to the plate and in developing
political support for large scale fire mitigation projects.
When the National Fire Plan 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan was signed by Idaho
Governor Dirk Kempthorne in May, 2002, Idaho fire officials were ready to develop a statewide
process for implementing the National Fire Plan in Idaho. Their efforts have lead to a model
program for effectively implementing the full potential of the National Fire Plan.
The Idaho Strategy
As a result of seven meetings held with State, federal, and local fire and emergency
services personnel around the State, Idaho Department of Lands fire managers noted several
problems that needed to be overcome to effectively implement the National Fire Plan:
89

• There was a lack of coordinated effort between agencies in some areas.
• There was a lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities between agencies and
among the public.
• There was a lack of information sharing among different interdependent programs.
• Local fire and emergency services personnel were overwhelmed by all the programs and
paperwork.
During this exploration process, they also discovered an opportunity to combine efforts at
wildland fire mitigation planning with the new Federal Emergency Management Agency required
Community Mitigation Plans for natural disasters. Accordingly, the Idaho Bureau of
Disaster Services was invited to join the statewide planning group.
The Idaho Strategy is based on the following key assumptions that guided the State level
planning group. To achieve the objective of mitigating the danger of wildland fire to the citizens,
improvements, and natural resources of Idaho:
• Local leadership and local knowledge are key;
• Local decision-making should be facilitated and respected;
• Previous work should not be neglected or negated by the new process.
A wide range of state and federal agencies pooled their efforts to draft the Idaho National
Fire Plan Strategy, including:
Idaho Association of Counties
Idaho Resource Conservation and Development Council
Idaho Fire Chiefs Association
Idaho State Fire Marshal
Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services
Idaho Department of Lands
Idaho Governor’s Office
90

USDA Forest Service
USDI Bureau of Land Management
USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Idaho Strategy was approved on July 26 th , 2002 and calls for a three-tier approach to
implementing the National Fire Plan statewide. At the local level is the county-based group
which will conduct risk analysis, prioritize implementation project lists, facilitate implementation
among agencies and local interest groups, and provide continuity for mitigation efforts
(Figure 32). Typical participants in the county-level groups include:
• Federal agency fire management officials
• State fire management officials (both the Department of
Lands and the State Fire Marshal)
• Local fire chiefs
• County Commissioners
• Local and State disaster preparedness officials
• Resource Conservation and Development Councils
• Citizen groups (homeowners associations, service clubs,
etc.)
• Special interest groups.
At the State level, the statewide group will provide coordination and oversight, prioritize
projects, provide advice and counsel to the county-level groups, provide long-term direction,
and explore opportunities to make mitigation projects financially self-sustaining. Members of
the statewide group include:
91

• State and Federal fire officials
• Idaho Association of Counties
• Idaho Fire Chiefs’ Association
• Idaho Department of Commerce
• Idaho Governor’s Office
The Department of Commerce provides another possible funding source with grants for
community development and risk assessment, which can include fire protection planning.
Wildfires frequently have significant impacts on local economies, initially good by spurring
local purchases of goods and services during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation, but often
bad in the long-term as tourism, recreation, and logging
decline in post-fire periods.
The third component of the
Idaho Strategy for National Fire
Plan implementation is a web-based
statewide information sharing and
coordination method, under the
guidance of the statewide group.
This information is currently available
on the Idaho Department of
Lands website (http//
www2.state.id.us/lands/news.htm).
It allows all participating agencies
and any interested individuals to
keep up-to-date on National Fire
Plan projects statewide, and greatly
facilitates the annual reporting
requirements to the federal sponsor
agencies.
As mentioned earlier, it was discovered
that there was an opportunity to combine
wildland fire hazard mitigation planning
under the National Fire Plan with the Commu-
Figure 32. The implantation of the National Fire Plan
in Idaho was a statewide effort.
92

nity Mitigation Plans for natural disasters now being required by Federal Emergency Management
Agency before local agencies can be eligible for the Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program. Many communities were unaware of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirement and now will be able to position themselves for that funding source as well as
National Fire Plan grants. Funds from various sources were used to fund complementary efforts
(Figure 33)
State-level Efforts
The Idaho Department of Lands, in cooperation with the federal agencies administers
much of the pass-through funding available to local agencies under the National Fire Plan. Two
of the oldest aid programs are State Fire Assistance, which provides federal funds to state
wildland fire agencies, and Volunteer Fire Assistance, which is directed at local government fire
agencies. Under the National Fire Plan, this funding level has been dramatically increased,
allowing the Department of Lands not only to improve its own protection system, but to increase
its support to local government fire agencies, which are frequently the first responders to
wildland fires. Such assistance helps local fire protection districts meet needs ranging from
wildland fire safety clothing, to newer, more reliable fire apparatus, to better public education
programs. Most of the available funding is prioritized for agencies serving the wildland/urban
interface, where homes and people are at greatest risk.
FEMA grant funds can be used for
wildfire protection plans.
A newer state-level funding source is Rural Fire Assistance monies from the US Department
on Interior
agencies, which are
targeted at rural fire
protection districts
to help them improve
their capabilities
to fight wildland
fires more efficiently
and safely.
These rural fire
departments provide
critical initial attack
fire protection to
millions of acres of
Figure 33. Funds from various sources were used to fund the complementary
programs in Kootenai County.
93

public domain lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and, when
properly equipped and trained, can be an important resource for large wildland
fires.
Under the National Fire Plan, the Idaho Department of Lands has been
able to provide funding for wildfire mitigation projects on more than 13,000 acres
of private forest lands in the State. Most of these efforts are aimed at reducing
dangerous fuel levels in the woods, frequently by mechanical harvesting or treatment
methods, but also with prescribed fire. Usually, fuel loading is so high that
some form of fuel treatment is needed before fire can be reintroduced to the
woods, especially in the wildland/urban interface.
Figure 34. National Fire Plan money was matched
with funds from the State parks to construct this fuel
break.
An example of a cooperative state-level hazard
reduction program is the project at Heyburn State Park in
the northern Idaho panhandle, where some 70 summer
cabins were at serious risk from wildfire in an overcrowded,
decadent forest setting. Idaho Department of
Lands, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Parks
and Recreation, designed a 100-foot wide fuelbreak to
protect the park and the cabins from encroaching wildfire
(Figure 34). The 1.5 mile fuelbreak was created by a
commercial thinning logging operation, followed by
mechanical reduction of slash by a contractor. Funding
was provided by a $26,000 grant from Idaho Department
of Lands, with Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
matching that grant. Almost 75% of the funding that Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation was able to contribute
was derived from the sale of the harvested timber.
Idaho Department of Lands will also be sponsoring a FireWise Communities Workshop in
Coeur D’Alene on May 21-22, 2003 which will provide an opportunity for local government,
fire, emergency services, and planning officials to learn more about protecting communities
from encroaching wildfires.
94

Kootenai County FireSmart
The county-level planning group in Kootenai County, which encompasses the valuable
and desirable Coeur D’Alene Lake recreation area, chose to operate with a centralized, countywide
approach to implementing the National Fire Plan. Organizing under the moniker Kootenai
County FireSmart, they obtained a grant from IDOC to do fire planning, and another grant from
the Bureau of Land Management Communities at Risk program to do risk assessment for all
communities in the county. The risk assessment becomes the basis for both wildland fire mitigation
project planning under the National Fire Plan, and also assists communities in developing
their Community Mitigation Plans for Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Having completed the risk assessment and fire planning, Kootenai County FireSmart was
then able to establish its project priorities. With solid local support generated during the planning
and risk assessment efforts, they decided to try to undertake an ambitious large-scale
hazard fuel treatment that, over three years, would create defensible space around more than
2,000 structures in targeted high risk areas of the county. Under the FireSmart hazard reduction
project, homeowners in
the high risk areas can
get defensible space
established on their
properties for free,
provided they agree to
properly maintain the
premises for at least ten
years (Figure 35 and 36).
The program began by
utilizing the Fire Education
Corps of the Student
Conservation Association
to begin educating
owners about the
FireSmart project and on
the need for defensible
space around their
homes. The Fire Education
Corps also created
Figure 35. Kootenai County FireSmart coordinated the development of
“defensible space” around hundreds of homes.
FireSmart is working hard to reduce
the wildland/urban interface fire
problem in Kootenai County, Idaho.
95

model defensible space demonstration sites to help people
appreciate the “clean and green” outcome of properly executed
fuel hazard reduction projects. With its act together,
its assessment completed, and its priorities established,
Kootenai County FireSmart was able to land a National Fire
Plan grant for $1,816,905 in Fiscal Year 2002 to fund its
project.
Meanwhile, Idaho Department of Lands was able to
also route SFA, VFA, and RFA funds to eight rural fire
departments in Kootenai County, allowing them to not only
improve their suppression capability, but to begin to sponsor
wildland/urban interface education programs in their communities
that should help generate more homeowner interest
in the FireSmart hazard reduction project. In total, Kootenai
County received nearly $2 million in National Fire Plan
funding.
Figure 36. Before and after pictures
of a home in Kootenai County.
With a good plan, solid initial funding, and the opportunity to leverage additional funding
from corporate sponsors and community service organizations, Kootenai County FireSmart
is poised to make a serious difference in the fire risk to people and homes in the wildland/urban
interface of northern Idaho.
96

The Healthy Forests Initiative
Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities
In August of 2002, President George W. Bush used the Squires Peak Fire in southwest
Oregon as the backdrop for the introduction of a White House-sponsored initiative to improve
fire prevention and forge stronger communities by speeding up the approval process for forest
thinning and health improvement projects on federal lands.
Standing at a point where the Squires Peak Fire had crowned over a ridge top in dense
timber, destroying an on-going logging operation for fuel reduction, the President noted that the
2002 fire season was already one of the worst in modern history, with fires affecting hundreds
of communities, necessitating the evacuation of thousands of residents, destroying millions of
dollars worth of timber, and causing great damage to municipal watersheds.
190 million acres of federal forest
land at risk of catastrophic wildfire.
The initiative stated that catastrophic fires are caused by deteriorating forest and rangeland
health due to suppression of fires and lack of active forest and range management practices. It
identified 190 million acres of unnaturally dense forests on public land as being at risk of
catastrophic wildfires. The report noted that these deteriorated forest and rangelands significantly
affect people, property, and ecosystem health and that “enhanced measures are needed to
restore forest and rangeland health to reduce the risk of these catastrophic wildfires”. It pointed
to “needless” red tape and lawsuits that delay effective implementation of forest health projects,
citing several examples in the West.
The initiative includes direction to the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and the
chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to improve regulatory processes to
ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing fire danger and
restoring forest health. Key measures include:
• Improving procedures for developing and implementing fuel treatment and forest
restoration projects.
• Reducing the number of overlapping environmental reviews.
97

• Developing guidance for weighing the short-term risks against the long-term benefits
of treatment projects.
• Developing guidance to ensure consistent NEPA procedures for fuel treatment and
forest health projects.
The report also stated that the President would work with Congress on legislation to:
• Authorize federal agencies to enter into long-term stewardship contracts with the
private sector, and state and local governments.
• Expedite implementation of fuel reduction and forest health improvement projects.
• Ensure that federal judges consider long-terms risks of harm to people, property, and
the environment in deciding challenges to projects.
• Remove a rider that imposed extraordinary procedural requirements on the Forest
Service appeal process.
• Fully implement the promises of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan by removing needless
administrative obstacles and renewing the commitment to a balanced conservation
strategy.
Key reasons that catastrophic wildfires harm people, property, and the environment were
cited as:
• Risk to firefighters
• Increased air pollution
• Community evacuations
• Property damage
• Disruption to local economies
- Reduced tourism
- Damage to municipal watersheds
98

• Environmental damage
- Damaged fisheries
- Destroyed endangered species habitat
- Soil sterilization and erosion
- Spread of invasive plant species
- Disease and insect infestations
The initiative paper notes that progress has been made in improving fire protection and
forest health with recent increases in funding for hazardous fuels treatment projects and additional
suppression resources (+ 377 fire engines, 4,900 fire personnel, aircraft, bulldozers, etc.).
It identified 1.9 million acres as already treated with thinning or prescribed burning, with
another 2.5 million acres slated to be completed by the end of the year.
In referring to the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan between federal
wildfire agencies, affected states, tribal, and local governments, the initiative notes that a key
priority of this plan is more active forest and rangeland management to reduce the accumulation
of fuels and to restore ecosystem health. This plan also establishes 23 priority tasks for
federal, state, and local governments, most importantly:
• Developing and implementing a process for all levels of government to collaborate on
fuel treatment and burned area rehabilitation projects.
• Developing and implementing consistent and effective contracting, procurement, and
grant processes for fuel treatment projects.
• Assessing federal regulatory processes and identifying measures to improve timely
decision-making.
The document also identifies significant actions the administration is taking to improve the
effectiveness of its fuels treatment and forest health improvement programs, including:
• Making procedural improvements
• Increasing management effectiveness
• Sponsoring critical research
• Restoring record amounts of burned forests (BAER)
99

• Providing grants to communities for hazard mitigation plans and projects, market
utilization of small-diameter wood materials projects, and cost reimbursement for
firefighting efforts
• Increasing grants to improve local rural and volunteer fire departments
• Enlisting Student Conservation Association (SCA) volunteers
Procedural delays (“red tape”) stall
critical forest health restoration
projects.
The initiative contends that procedural delays are stalling critical forest and rangeland
management projects, citing a FS study, The Process Predicament, with three factors contributing
the most to project delays:
• Excessive analysis
• Ineffective public involvement
• Management inefficiencies
Several examples are cited where the decision-making and appeals processes are so long
that by the time the project is finally approved, it is no longer viable. Reasons include running
out of funds, salvage timber deterioration, insect infestations, and wildfires that burn the forest
before it can be thinned.
The Healthy Forests Initiative uses the Squires Peak Fire in Oregon as a case study of how
properly planned and executed fuel reduction projects can reduce potential wildfire damages,
despite the current obstacle course of analysis paralysis.
Finally, the initiative calls for actions to identify ways to put the Northwest Forest Plan,
which has yet to come anywhere near its projected level of action, back on track toward restoring
a sustainable forest economy in the Pacific Northwest.
The Healthy Forests Initiative is an attempt by the Administration to overcome some of the
current obstacles to effective fuels reduction and forest health improvement projects. Unfortunately,
vocal critics say the Administration is only chipping away at environmental safeguards
to speed up logging of old-growth forests. There is a pressing need to find a middle ground
where land managers and environmentalists can agree that timely and properly executed fuel
reduction projects, including commercial thinning logging operations, can reduce the threat of
catastrophic wildfire and improve forest health, to the benefit not only of humans, but of all
elements of the ecosystem.
100

The Drought and 2002 Fire Season
Fire Season 2002 in the West can be characterized as busy, intense, and difficult, punctuated
by record-sized major conflagrations. Nearly 40,000 wildfires burned nearly 7 million
acres, not quite as much as in 2000, but far above average.
Record sized major fires occurred in Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon. Major fires occurred
throughout the West, from San Diego to Wenatche, and from Gold Beach to the Black Hills.
There are two primary reasons for the widespread, high intensity, destructive major fires of
2002:
• Drought
• Decadent forest health
Fire in the West 2002:
40,000 wildfires;
7 million acres burned.
We have already discussed the forest health issue, and now need to take a look at the
extent of the drought conditions in the West.
Drought and Forest Fires in the West
Drought is no stranger to southwest United States. Repeated extended dry cycles over
thousands of years have lead to the development of desert landscapes composed of species able
to withstand extended periods without rain.
Across much of the SW there are only three basic types of forests, each dependent on the
amount of water available in the soil annually. At the mid-elevations, above the scrub brush and
cactus of the desert floor, where more rainfall occurs due to orographic lifting of the clouds, the
Pinyon-Juniper (P-J) forest struggles to survive. P-J forest is characterized by widely spaced to
scattered trees, interspersed with the desert scrub and brush species. Only along seasonal watercourses
or just below the snowline are you likely to find relatively dense stands of P-J.
Ponderosa Pine is the most common conifer forest type in the SW, occurring at higher
elevations where the winter snow pack banks water that the trees can draw on to sustain growth
throughout much of the year.
101

In the higher mountains, and along cool, moister canyon walls above the pine belt, a true
mixed conifer forest may be found, with Douglas Fir, true firs, incense cedar, etc. mixing with
or supplanting Ponderosa Pine.
Long periods of drought are becoming
more common in the Southwest.
In recent years, there have been increasing numbers of large, damaging forest fires in the
SW. Although to some degree this is the result of forest management practices such as logging
and fire suppression that have lead to an increase in fuels, a major contributor to this flammable
situation has been climate variability. Indications are that the climate in much of the
West is changing, becoming more variable, with greater extremes than we have experienced
throughout much of the last hundred or so years. One of the facets of the “new climate” is
increased periods of prolonged drought, which leave the forests tinder dry and more susceptible
to serious epidemics of insects, diseases, and intense forest fires.
Drought and Forest Fires
Long periods of drought are becoming more common in the SW and can be linked to
major fire occurrence. The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is a long-term measure of
dryness or wetness, not affected by single precipitation events, using a scale ranging from
extreme drought (4.0). In a 50-year composite of the PDSI for the
US, the southwest region scores
the driest in the US (Figure 37).
According to Mark W.
Patterson of the University of
Arizona, in his paper Forest
Fires and Drought in the U.S.
Southwest, drought conditions
influence the occurrence of forest
fires in the SW. Fire history data
collected from tree-ring analyses
was compared to the PDSI,
showing that “larger forest fires
tend to occur when the PDSI is
lower.”
Figure 37. The heart of the Nation has historically been in a drought
condition...it isn’t anything new.
102

In drought conditions, fire management practices are disrupted, as it is harder to conduct
prescribed burns to reduce forest fuel accumulations, and it is harder to make successful initial
attack on wildfires. Larger, more intense forest fires frequently result in the loss of homes,
wildlife, and recreational opportunities. Even without the fires, drought conditions may diminish
recreation by restricting campfires or necessitating closures.
Large, intense forest fires can radically alter significant areas of wildlife habitat, which
may adversely impact animal populations, especially endangered species.
Currently, the natural resource agencies of the West are attempting to reintroduce frequent,
low-intensity fires to the ecosystem, to try to restore forest health. One of the problems
with implementing this policy change in an effective way is that, even in normal precipitation
years, the fuel accumulations are too heavy to use fire without first reducing stand density and
eliminating ladder fuels which contribute to crown fires. Some environmentalists resist thinning
projects, viewing them as logging in disguise. This makes it more expensive to conduct
hazard reduction, meaning that fewer acres can be treated with available funds. In drought
years, it is nearly impossible to achieve proper fire danger conditions to conduct prescribed
burns, even in thinned/treated forests.
Drought conditions make it harder to
use prescribed fire.
Efforts to return forests to pre-fire suppression natural conditions are likely to be compounded
by several conditions:
• Increased fuel loading, which makes fires burn more intensely.
• Increased presence of brushy understory vegetation (“ladder fuels”), which lead surface
fires into the crowns of trees.
• Increased stand density, with closed canopy forests more susceptible to crown fires.
• Different climatic conditions, resulting in greater fire danger much of the time.
• Different climatic conditions may also affect the succession of species following fire
and the survival of various species, both desirable and unwanted.
103

The Four Corners region was experiencing
“exceptional drought” in the
spring of 2002.
At the start of the 2002,
drought was widespread in the
U.S. and was especially serious
in the SW. Fire season started
early, and large fires were common
in the spring months,
especially in New Mexico,
Arizona, and Colorado (Figure
38).
Meteorologists had predicted
the drought and its accompanying
heat wave would persist
through the summer from New
Mexico north to Montana and
Idaho. As predicted, the drought
grew worse, especially for the
Four Corners and eastern Rocky
Mountain areas, with much of
the West being in severe to
exceptional drought conditions
by September (Figure 39).
Rainfall in October finally
brought an end to the occurrence
of large wildfires in the West, but
the drought persists. It is unlikely
that enough precipitation
will occur during a forecast “El
Nino” winter to ameliorate the
drought conditions in the entire
Western US before fire season
2003.
104
Figure 38. The drought monitor map for June 4 shows the
Southwest and Northern Rockies in a severe drought.
Figure 39. The drought monitor map for September 4 still shows the
Southwest and Northern Rockies in a severe drought.

The 2002 Fire Season
The continuing drought in the West made fire season 2002 the fifth year of severe drought
in the last six years. Even in May, the countryside in most states was sere and withered as
August in California. The southern Rocky Mountains were the focus of the worst of the
drought, with the Four Corners area rated as suffering “exceptional drought”, and rain and
snowfall at less than 65% of the annual average (Figure 40).
Colorado suffered the
driest spring in its 107-year
history of weather records, and
Arizona it’s second driest.
Testament to the drought was
not difficult to find, as Pinyon
Pines in Arizona’s P-J forests
withered and died across huge
areas. In the mountains, 30% of
the water-stressed Ponderosa
Pines in the Flagstaff/Williams
area had succumbed to bark
beetle attacks, leaving the green
forest canopy splotched with
brown treetops. Reservoirs
sported brown bathtub rings,
and stocks ponds turned into
dust bowls.
Figure 40. The Drought Monitor map for May 7, 2002 didn’t look
good. The Rocky Mountain and South Western states were in extreme
drought conditions.
Colorado had the driest spring in
weather records history.
The drought covered 40% of the country, with the southeast (except Florida this time) also
hard hit. In the West, drought conditions ranged from Southern California to Montana, and as
far east as western Nebraska and Kansas. Corn crops shriveled. Birds abandoned their nests.
Wildflowers failed to bloom. Streams stopped flowing, trapping fish in oxygen-depleted hot
tubs; 33,000 salmon and steelhead suffocated in California’s Klamath River. Cities and counties
imposed water rationing regulations.
105

Wildland fire officials geared up for an early and severe fire season, and sought budget
augmentations to help cope with extreme fire danger in overstocked, decadent forests increasingly
crowded with new homes.
The Indian Fire threatened 2,000
homes in Prescott.
Monster Fires Spring Up
The best indicator of how a drought-aided spring fire season might shake out could have
been the Indian Fire, which started on May 15 th in the middle of the afternoon in the Prescott
National Forest just south of Prescott, Arizona. Upon arrival of the initial attack resources, the
fire was already 10-15 acres in size and beginning to crown and spot in heavy Ponderosa Pine
forest. Headed uphill in front of a prevailing southwest wind, the Indian fire was charging right
at the city. The interagency command teams quickly ordered many engine strike teams for
structure protection assignments ahead of the fire, and initiated a heavy air show to try to keep
the fire out of town. A tricky firing operation in a fuel reduction project, aided by air support
and lessening winds, resulted in containment the first night at 1,365 acres, with only 5 homes
lost. 80% of the Indian Fire burned at high intensity, and more than 2,000 homes in Prescott
were directly in the path of the fire. Suppression costs were calculated at $1.2 million with $1.8
million in damages.
Near the end of May, three major fires in three different western States hinted at what
might be in store for the rest of the summer. On May 21 st , the Bullock Fire started in Arizona’s
Coronado National Forest, burning 30,563 acres of the Gila River watershed until controlled on
June 14 th , before the official start of summer. The Borrego Fire in New Mexico’s Santa Fe
National Forest started the next day and burned 12,995 acres, racking up nearly $8 million in
suppression costs. On the 31 st of May in Utah, the human-caused Sanford fire began its march
across 64,909 acres of the Dixie National Forest.
June started off with a bang with the Wolf Fire on California’s Los Padres National Forest,
which would burn 21,645 acres before being controlled on June 30 th , and rack up an incredible
(for its size) $18 million in suppression costs. The Ponil Fire in New Mexico started the next
day, and cost $14 million to control more than three weeks later, having burned 92,194 acres.
On June 5 th , two new major fires started, with the Copper Fire on the Angeles National Forest in
Southern California burning 23,407 acres and the Big Wash fire in Utah burning 5,400 acres.
The first week of June ended with the start of the Hensel Fire in Wyoming, which burned
14,730 acres.
106

Figure 41. The drought picture is worsening in the western states.
Even the south is beginning to get behind in rain.
In Colorado, by the second
week of June, fuel conditions
were unprecedented with 1000-
hour fuels at historic low levels,
the brush fuels already below
critical live fuel moisture, and
the meager grass crop fully cured
(Figure 41). Summer weather
had arrived a month early, with
temperatures in the 90’s, and
relative humidity of 12 percent.
All of the ingredients for a
conflagration were all in place on
June 8 th , when a FS employee
deliberately started the Hayman
Fire on the Pike National Forest
southwest of Denver. Hayman
would grow to be the largest fire
in recorded Colorado history, burning 137,760 acres in four counties. By the time it was finally
controlled more than a month later, the Hayman Fire would burn 600 structures, cost $45
million to suppress, and devastate a major portion of the South Platte River watershed, source
of much of Denver’s water supply.
The Hayman Fire is the largest fire in
Colorado history.
About 81,000 people evacuated...just
in Colorado.
That same day, the Coal Seam Fire started near Glenwood Springs, Colorado and burned
12,209 acres in the next month. As if firefighters needed more work, the next day saw the start
of the Missionary Ridge Fire (70,485 acres) on the San Juan NF in southwestern Colorado. The
Missionary Ridge Fire would threaten multiple communities in its three-week life span, spawn
a fire tornado, and cost an astounding $41 million dollars to control. In the months of June and
July, 2002, major fires in Colorado would threaten at least 140 subdivisions all over the State,
necessitating the evacuation of about 81,000 people.
Just to keep the few uncommitted fire crews on their toes, the Blue Cut Fire on Southern
California’s San Bernardino National Forest started its rampage across 6,864 acres on June 16 th .
107

The Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned more
than 100,000 acres in one day!
While great numbers of suppression resources were being committed to the Hayman and
other Colorado fires, Arizona was about to break back into the big fire spotlight. The Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) Fort Apache Agency, with fire protection jurisdiction for the 1.6 million
acre White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation had sent crews, engines, and overhead to
Colorado, and was painfully aware of the shortage of air tankers, helicopters, and Type 1 crews.
On June 18 th , at about 1600 hours, the Rodeo Fire started about 2 miles northeast of the town of
Cibecue, in the northwest corner of the reservation. With record low fuel moisture and humidity
(2%), the fire, set by an Indian fire crew member in hopes of employment, burned 15 acres
in the first 13 minutes and established a good lead over the initial attack resources. Two days
later, with a major fire at hand and scarce resources finally starting to arrive in staging areas, the
Fort Apache Agency received a report of a new fire, this one started by a lost hiker. BIA immediately
diverted air resources from the Rodeo Fire and heavily augmented the initial attack
dispatch with ground resources from staging, nearly containing the Chediski fire at about 40
acres. But the wind kicked up, the fire spotted across shaky containment lines, hit the extra dry
timber, and quickly spread to more than 10,000 acres by nightfall. Both fires were plume
dominated forest fires, with frequent collapses of the thunderheads atop the convection columns
spreading fire in all directions each afternoon. Once the two fires merged on June 23 rd , not even
the bare rock face of the Mogollon Rim could keep them from spreading north and threatening
a dozen resort and summer home communities at the edge of the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forest. In the end, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire would become the largest in Arizona history and
easily the biggest fire in the West in many decades (at least for about a month). The final toll
was 468,863 acres, with 466 structures and 400 million board feet of timber destroyed. In one
day (June 23 rd ), the fire burned more than 100,000 acres! Suppression costs were estimated at
$60 to 70 million, but damages are still being calculated. Arizona was certainly back in the fire
news.
But June’s fire legacy was not over yet over for Colorado. On June 19 th , the undervalued
Million Fire ($9,400,000 suppression cost) was started on the Rio Grande National Forest and
burned 9,346 acres before being controlled. Three days later, the Spring Creek Complex of
lightning fires broke out on the White River National Forest in west central Colorado, burning
13,490 acres in the next month. During this same period, major fires started in New Mexico,
with the Roybal Complex of lightning fires burning 5,666 acres by the end of June, and in Utah,
where the Rattle Complex burned until August, covering 94,519 acres. The last of the major
fires to start in June was the Grizzly Gulch Fire in South Dakota, which burned 10,771 acres
between June 29 th and July 23 rd .
108

While these major fires continued to burn, the first week in July brought progress. The
situation report for Monday, July 8 th noted that although 244 new fires had been reported the
previous day, only seven of them became large fires, and six existing large fires had been
controlled. All of this activity occurred on a day when 25 major fires were still burning in the
West. Windy, hot, and dry weather was forecast to continue, with Wyoming targeted for highest
fire danger. But on July 9 th , the appropriately named Burn Canyon Fire (31,300 acres) on the
Grand Mesa National Forest in west central Colorado and the Eyerly Complex of lightning fires
(23,573 acres) in Oregon started, edging the stubborn Mule Fire (3,932 acres), which started in
Wyoming the next day, out of the headlines.
July 12 th brought dry thunderstorms to central and southern Oregon, touching off hundreds
of new fires (Figure 42). The largest of these would be the Toolbox Complex on the Fremont
National Forest in south-central Oregon, which would burn more than 120,000 acres before
being finally controlled nearly two months later. The Monument-Malheur Complex (44,062
acres) on the Malheur National Forest, the North Umpqua Complex (1,663 acres) and the Tiller
Complex (69,000 acres) on the Umpqua National Forest, and the Winter Fire (35,779 acres) in
the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) also started on that day. The next
day brought the discovery of
many new fires, three of which
would grow to become major
fires. The 747 Complex, on the
O & C timberlands of the BLM,
with fire protection contracted to
the ODF, would grow to 16,856
acres before being controlled on
August 5 th . The Sour Biscuit
Complex on the Siskiyou National
Forest in southwestern
Oregon would burn 41,897 acres
and cost $8 million to suppress.
But the “mother of all fires” for
the 2002 fire season was also
discovered on the Siskiyou
National Forest. Renamed the
Biscuit Fire after smaller fires
Figure 42. The situation isn’t changing in the west. Colorado,
Arizona and New Mexico are ripe for major fires.
On a typical day in the middle of fire
season, 25-30 major fires were
burning.
Dry lightning hit Oregon hard!
109

Giant sequoia groves threatened by
McNally Fire.
Pine Fire destroys 153 structures.
merged, this monster would burn nearly one half million acres, including nearly all of the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, threaten several towns (only 13 structures were lost), and burn
into California’s Smith River National Recreation Area before being finally controlled on
September 30 th following wetting rains. Suppression costs for the Biscuit Fire were estimated at
an unbelievable $149 million.
While Oregon bore the brunt of the new major fire business for much of July, significant
new large fires cropped up elsewhere. On July 12 th , the Gate Complex of lightning fires near
Carson City on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest started, eventually burning 9,900 acres
and getting Nevada on the charts. On July 15 th , the Deer Point Fire started in Washington’s
Wenatchee National Forest, spreading across more than 42,000 acres, and running up $15
million in suppression costs. Far to the south, the McNally Fire started in the Kern River
watershed of the Sequoia National Forest in California on July 21 st . In its 64-day life, the
McNally Fire would become the biggest fire in the history of the Sequoia National Forest (well
known for major fires) at 150,000 acres, threaten some of the largest stands of Giant Sequoia
trees, and provide lots of photo ops for the Southern California news media. This fire, which
cost $59 million to suppress, also was set by an irrational human being. The next day, the
lightning-caused Stanza Fire on the Klamath National Forest in far northern California began
burning 2,880 acres. Also on July 22 nd , the Garden Valley Complex of lightning fires started on
the Boise National Forest in Idaho, eventually burning only 1,131 acres, but costing over $8
million to suppress.
The last two major fires to start in July were the East Fork in Utah on the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest on the 28 th , and the Pines Fire in the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection’s San Diego Unit on the 29 th . The Pines Fire would cover 61,690 acres of rugged
chaparral mountains and destroy 153 structures before being controlled on August 22 nd at a cost
of $27 million. The situation report for July 30, 2002 noted 32 major fires burning in the West,
and forecast a warning for dry lightning and gusty winds in Montana.
The first two weeks of August brought a break in new major fire occurrence, but things
began to pick up around the middle of the month. On August 12 th , the Mount Zirkel Complex
of lightning fires started, burning 31,016 acres on the Routt National Forest in north-central
Colorado. On the 16 th , the Apple Fire started on the Umpqua National Forest in Oregon, burning
17,600 acres with more than $18 million in suppression costs.
110

Also on the 16 th of August, the Battle Creek Fire in South Dakota started its run across 13,700
acres. August wound down with only one more new major fire, the Commissary Ridge Fire, which
burned 3,500 acres in Wyoming.
September started off with a bang, with the Curve Fire on Southern California’s Angeles
National Forest burning 20,857 acres (and 73 structures), with suppression costs totaling more than
$14 million. Comparative peace and quiet reigned for most of the rest of September, with major fires
all over the West being brought under control and many weary fire crews finally returning to their
home bases. A series of fires in California near the end of the month rounded out the 2002 Fire
Season. The Williams Fire on the Angeles National Forest burned 36,530 acres and 76 structures
starting on the 22 nd of September. The Croy Fire in CDF’s Santa Clara Unit burned 3,127 acres and
34 structures on the 23 rd . The Cone Fire on the Lassen National Forest in northeastern California was
the last major fire of the season, burning 2,006 acres starting on the 26 th .
Lightning was again the primary
cause of major fires, but several were
arson.
Summary
The 2002 Fire Season, while not quite as big as the 2000 Fire Season, will nevertheless go
down in the record books:
· Federal Fires 17,000 for 4.5 million acres.
· State Fires 67,000 for 2.6 million acres.
· Total Fires 87,000 for 7.3 million acres.
Observations and Success Stories
As happened in the 2000 Fire Season, this year the primary cause of the major fires in the west
was lightning, and most originated on federal land. Given that the National Forest and Public Domain
lands in the West contain some of the highest mountains and most remote, unpopulated area, it
is to be expected that these areas would receive the biggest share of lightning. Given that:
• The Federal lands, especially the National Forests, have gone nearly unmanaged during the
“analysis paralysis” of the past decade, it is reasonable to expect that it will be more difficult to
control multiple fires in these decadent forest and brush lands;
• The West was in a state of severe to extreme drought this summer, it is reasonable to expect
that fires would burn with increased intensity and be more resistant to control;
111

• There were 25-35 major fires burning at any time during the fire season (Figures 43), it is
reasonable to expect that there would be significant shortages of scarce suppression resources,
especially air tankers and helicopters;
• The wildland/urban interface in the West continues to expand, it is reasonable to expect that
large numbers of structures may be threatened by any major fire;
• Few states have stringent FireSafe regulations and a large proportion of property owners in
the wildland/urban interface are still resistant to creating and maintaining defensible space
around their homes, it is reasonable to expect that large numbers of structures will be lost in
major fires;
Shortages of limited resources (e.g.,
airtankers, helicopters) persisted
throughout the fire season.
• Fires under these conditions will burn erratically, it is to be expected that firefighters and
civilians will be endangered, injured, and killed fighting wildfires;
• Some agencies are still reluctant to enter into closest resource cooperative agreements, and
fail to do advance strategic and operational planning and joint training with adjacent agencies, it
is to be expected that some fires will be mismanaged, escape initial attack, and grow too large
to handle until the weather moderates;
• Many local rural fire departments are under staffed, under trained, and under equipped, it is
reasonable to expect that many fires will escape initial attack suppression efforts;
• Many local governments think that hazard reduction is not their responsibility, it is reasonable
to expect that the WUI problem will continue to worsen; and
• These larger, more intense fires are more difficult to suppress and threaten more structures
each year, it is reasonable to expect that suppression costs will be horrendous.
Fire Season 2002 certainly met all of these expectations. While the total acreage burned may
not exceed that of 2000, the fires were every bit as bad, and the toll on our forests, soils, watersheds,
wildlife, scenery, homes, and local economies were just as devastating.
112

Despite the bad news, there are success
stories and important lessons hidden by the
smoke from the fires of 2002:
• Crown fires generally dropped down to
the surface wherever they encountered fuel
reduction projects or old burns, proving that
such projects make wildfires easier to
contain.
• Much of the hazard reduction work being
funded by the National Fire Plan is being
done in strategic locations that will help
protect communities from wildfires.
• Efforts by agencies to work cooperatively
pay off when time comes to operate under
Area Command teams or MACS groups,
because the players know each other, the
rules of the game, and what to expect from
each agency involved.
• Wildland fire training provided to local
fire agencies makes them a useful part of fire
control efforts, rather than a pain in the rear.
• When agencies cooperate, limited funds
can be leveraged with other funding sources
and volunteer efforts to accomplish larger
projects.
• Preplanning, joint training, hazard reduction,
closest resource interagency response,
and interagency local incident management
teams pay off in fires in the wildland/urban
interface contained early, with minimal
structure loss.
Large and Damaging Fires 2002 Fire Season
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
New Mexico
Nevada
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
May June July August September October
21 Bullock, 30,563 ac, 7 structures
21 Rodeo/Chediski Complex, 468,638 ac, 496 structures
15 Pack Rat Complex, 3,470 ac
1 Wolf, 21,645 ac
5 Cooper, 23,407 ac. 26 structures
16 Bluecut, 6,864 ac
13 Mussolini, 3,260 ac
21 McNally, 150,696 ac
22 Stanza, 2,880ac
29 Pines, 61,690 ac, 153 structures
1 Curve, 20,857 ac, 73 structures
22 Williams, 36,530 ac, 76 structures
23 Croy, 3,127 ac, 34 structures
26 Cone, 2,006 ac
21 Schoonover, 3860 ac. 13 structures
8 Coal Seam, 12,209 ac, 43 structures
8 Hayman, 137,760 ac, 600 structures
9 Missionary Ridge, 70,662 ac, 77 structures
19 Million, 9,346 ac, 13 structures
22 Spring Creek Complex, 13,490 ac
9 Burn Canyon, 31,300 ac
14 Green Creek, 4,400 ac
17 Big Elk, 4,413 ac, 3 deaths
12 Mt Zirkel, 31,016 ac
22 Borrego, 12,995 ac, 1 structure
2 Ponil, 9,194 ac
13 Roybal, 5,666 ac
Figure 43. There were over 40 major fires in the West.
113
Month
22 Garden Valley Complex, 1,131 ac
12 Gate Complex, 9,900 ac, 2 structures
9 Eyerly Complex, 23,573 ac, 37 structures
12 North Umpqua Complex, 1,663 ac
12 Tool Box Complex, 120,085 ac
12 Monument-Malheur Complex, 44,062 ac
12 Winter, 35,894 ac, 5 structures
12 Tiller Complex, 69,000 ac
13 Biscuit (Florence) 499,945 ac, 13 structures
13 Sour Biscuit, 41,897 ac
13 747 Complex, 16,856
23 Cache Mountain, 4,200 ac
29 Grizzly Gulch, 10,771 ac, 22 structures
16 Battle Creek, 13,700 ac, 4 structures
31 Sanford, 64,909 ac
5 Big Wash, 5,400 ac
20 Rattle Complex, 94,519 ac, 2 structures
28 East Fork, 14,208 ac, 55 structures
15 Deer Point, 42,674 ac, 5 structures
7 Hensel, 14,730 ac, 7 structures
11 Mule, 3,932 ac
29 Commissary Ridge, 3,500 ac, 2 structures

Safety and Wildland Firefighting Strategy
When in offensive mode, you go after
the fire.
When in defensive mode, you protect
valuable property.
When in avoidance, you avoid risk at
all cost.
A strategy is a consciously selected approach to achieving a goal. In wildland firefighting,
the goal is frequently to first contain (stop the spread) and then control (extinguish) the fire.
Sometimes the goal may be modified with qualifiers such as time constraints, administrative
restraints, or fiscal limitations, thus complicating the fire manager’s mission. Selection of an
appropriate strategy early in the game is one of the keys to successful firefighting.
Offensive Strategy
An offensive strategy is one in which the fire manager elects to use his resources to go
after the fire “here and now”; i.e. under the conditions as they currently exist in the place the
fire is now located. This is not necessarily direct attack in which suppression resources must
work directly on the fire edge, but more a philosophical choice about which has the upper hand
at the moment, the fire or the suppression force. An offensive strategy is the correct choice
when the current and expected fire behavior is within parameters that allow available suppression
resources to be effective and the location of the fire is readily accessible to the suppression
force. A roadside grass fire on a normal summer afternoon is an example of a situation where an
offensive strategy is appropriate.
Defensive Strategy
A defensive strategy is one in which the fire manager decides that direct attack on the
fire under current conditions or in its present location is not practical and it is prudent to back
off to a more advantageous location or wait for conditions to change. A defensive strategy is the
correct choice when fire behavior exceeds the capabilities of the available suppression resources,
or the fire is not immediately accessible to the suppression force. A running brush fire
on a steep slope with no road access for ground resources is an example of a situation where a
defensive strategy, such as backing off to a ridgetop road for a firing operation well in advance
of the fire head, may be appropriate.
Avoidance Strategy
Avoidance strategy is where the fire manager decides not to confront the fire at all, thus
avoiding the risk of selecting an inappropriate strategy. This situation occurs not because a fire
manager has “chickened out”, but because an agency has created a set of constraints on the fire
manager that are so onerous as to preclude any chance of success.
114

The fire manager is forced to withdraw the suppression force completely and retreat to the
relative safety of an administrative facility to await a change in conditions that would invalidate
the constraints. An example of avoidance strategy would be the current “disengagement criteria”
foisted on the Forest Service by OSHA in the aftermath of the unnecessary firefighter
fatalities on the Thirty Mile Fire.
Recently there has been considerable debate, mostly initiated by the inexperienced and
subscribed to by the uniformed, that Fire Order #1: “Fight fire aggressively, but provide for
safety first” is an oxymoron. That is to say that aggressive firefighting is inherently unsafe. This
erroneous hypothesis has lead to the new vision of firefighter safety espoused in the Thirty Mile
Fire OSHA report that firefighters should be removed from exposure to heat and smoke when a
wildfire is active enough to be “dangerous”. This has resulted in the totally new concept of
“disengagement criteria” under which, when the fire acts up, everybody goes home.
Fire Order #1: Fight fire aggressivley,
but provide for safety first.
The problem with the concept of disengagement is that it assumes wildfires are homogenous
masses of light source energy that can be measured and compared to a set of arbitrary
criteria, resulting in a scientifically correct answer to an unanswerable question. Fires are not
homogeneous, and even in the worst fire behavior conditions, there are places and circumstances
on nearly every fire where effective fire control work can be done in relative safety. On
a wind-driven fire, this means starting at the heel and working the flanks, avoiding the dangerous
head of the fire until the wind dies down. On a high intensity timber fire it means backing
off and constructing indirect control lines well in advance of the fire front. It means staying out
of chimneys above chaparral brush fields where fires can quickly flare up. It means making a
concentrated control effort in those places that are relatively safe at those times when fire
intensity is least (e.g. night).
Total disengagement from a wildfire is not a safety enhancement, it is a dereliction of
duty. While there may be times in the worst of fire behavior situations where the most prudent
course of action is to fall back, retreat should never become surrender. When forced to leave a
section of line, firefighters should regroup, reassess, redeploy, gain additional suppression
resources, and recommit at another location where they can effectively employ productive
tactics.
115

Disengagement allows a fire to grow larger, burn more intensely, and threaten more resources,
property, and people. Disengagement is inaction rather than action. Disengagement is
admitting you don’t know what you are doing.
Failure to fight fire strategically and aggressively actually increases the level of danger
to which firefighters and civilians may be exposed by allowing fires to become larger, more
intense, and longer lived. Disengagement is not a solution to firefighter injuries and deaths; it is
only an avoidance strategy.
Failure to fight fire aggressively actually
increases the level of danger.
Effectively implementing Fire Order #1 should be the first priority of all wildland fire
agencies. Firefighter safety can be enhanced by:
• Improving the level of training and experience of fireline supervisors;
• Improving the level of fire behavior training made available to all firefighters;
• Equipping each firefighter with a portable radio and a smoke mask;
• Establishing defensible space around structures worth protecting;
• Providing appropriate command and control of suppression forces;
• Obtaining more reliable and efficient fire apparatus;
• Establishing automatic/mutual aid agreements to improve the availability of scarce
resources;
• Reducing the reliance on contract fire crews;
• Utilizing air tankers for initial attack.
Avoiding the avoidance strategy situations should become a mantra for fire managers, for
avoidance strategy robs you of choices and commits you to a predetermined, and probably
inappropriate, action.
116

Why Fires Will Get Bigger, Costlier and more Damaging
In our investigation of major fires in recent years, several major factors are frequently
identified that can explain why fires continue to get bigger and more expensive to control. In
most major fires, two or more of these factors combine to result in a fire that is beyond the
capability of the suppression system to control until one or more of these factors is reduced or
eliminated. The concept is similar to accident investigation theory, where usually several “little”
factors add up to serious consequences.
Contributing Factors
To illustrate this concept, we developed a sidebar graphic, Why fires will get bigger!, to
highlight the presence or absence of these contributing factors in any given fire story.
Following is a more detailed explanation of the components of each
of these significant factors:
Weather Conditions
• Drought includes warmer, drier
weather making fire danger higher;
• Wind has greater influence on high
intensity fires;
• More ignitions are likely in warm,
dry weather;
• Hot weather reduces firefighter
effectiveness;
• Vegetation is drier and more flammable;
• The dead-live fuel ratio in most
species is higher;
117

• Drier fuels are easier to ignite;
• Drier fuels burn with greater intensity and
are more difficult to extinguish;
• Water sources may be less available.
Fuel Conditions
• The high fuel volumes in
decadent forests;
• There are more dead fuels
which are highly flammable;
• Heavy fuels burn with
greater intensity;
• Heavy fuels are more resistant to control
efforts.
Wildland/Urban Interface
• More people mean more fires;
• Structure protection workload detracts from perimeter control effort;
• More complex strategy situations are likely.
Inadequate Pre-suppression
• Lack of fuelbreaks/firebreaks makes containment more difficult;
• Lack of thinning/slash treatment makes more fuel available;
• Inability to control regrowth reduces effective life span of treatment projects;
118

119
• Lack of prescribed burning
means more available fuel.
Failed Suppression Action
• Lack of immediate, aggressive
initial attack;
• Not using the “closest available
resources” regardless of agency;
• Lack of interagency cooperation
reduces efficiency;
• Administrative constraints (e.g.
wilderness areas, ESA, etc.) limit
suppression force effectiveness.
Suppression Costs and
Damages
In most instances, these factors
also contribute to the final cost of
suppression. Not only is there a
relationship between fire size and
suppression cost, there is a relationship
between fire complexity and
suppression cost. Any time that a
wildfire occurs in the WUI, more
resources will be needed on Initial
Attack to protect the structures that
will immediately be threatened. Fires
in the WUI will require more air
tankers and helicopters than fires in the wilderness, just to protect improvements. Frequently
these additional forces will be from outside agencies under some type of agreement for hire,
driving up suppression costs.

Higher intensity fires will require more people to control and take longer to extinguish,
resulting in more overtime and higher costs.
As more improvements are added in the wildland/urban interface, more structures will be
lost, and damages will increase. Higher intensity fires will do more damage to timber, water,
recreation, and soil, all of which are of increasing economic importance.
Thus, without mitigation of as many of these factors as possible, fires will continue to get
more costly, not just because they are larger, but also because they are more damaging and more
complex to manage.
120

Major Fires
Space does not permit any worthwhile discussion of all the major fires of the 2002 fire
season. The authors selected as examples two major fires in two states that we thought were
especially important to understanding the severity of the 2002 fire season. We also selected two
fires in two states that did not become large, damaging fires as worthy examples of how effective
interagency presuppression and suppression efforts can stop fires at reasonable sizes and
costs, despite severe fire danger.
We did not prepare a biography of the biggest fire (Biscuit – OR) because it originated in
and burned mostly FS wilderness, a scenario covered in detail in the Fire Season 2000 report.
We selected the Hayman Fire (CO) because it was multi-jurisdictional, impacted multiple
NFP-funded projects, threatened and destroyed a lot of structures, and placed in jeopardy a
major portion of the South Platte River watershed that is so critical to the water supply for
Denver.
Eight states had fires that qualified
for FEMA reimbursement in 2002.
We selected the Rodeo-Chediski Fire (AZ) because the starts were human-caused, the fire
agency was affected by reduced availability of IA resources due to other major fires, fire behavior
was dominated by drought conditions, and the fire simultaneously threatened multiple
communities, some of which had NFP-funded projects.
We selected the Squires Peak Fire (OR) because it occurred in an area where interagency
cooperation is good, multiple hazard reduction projects are being strategically coordinated, and
the area is representative of the rural wildland/urban interface condition.
We selected the Indian Fire (AZ) because it is a classic wildland/urban interface fire
problem that had a successful outcome due to effective interagency cooperation.
We hope the biographies of these four fires contain lessons that are important to the improvement
of the wildland fire protection system in the West.
121

The Squires Peak Fire – Oregon
The Applegate River watershed of southwestern Oregon is an interior basin west of
Medford that carries runoff from the Siskiyou Mountains northwest into the Rogue River. The
area is characterized by rugged mountains with many small valleys along feeder streams. Cover
type is primarily mixed conifer forest with scattered, but significant, patches of oak woodland.
The area is bordered to the south and the southwest by the Siskiyou National Forest, on the
south by the Rogue River National Forest, and on the east by private lands, mostly timber
company holdings and large ranches.
Checkerboard ownership patterns
complicate fire protection projects.
Much of the Applegate River watershed is a checkerboard pattern of public domain lands
and private lands. Towns are small and scattered, but much of the private land is developed and
occupied. The population is increasing and the Wildland/Urban Interface problem is growing.
As the lumber industry has declined in the area and unemployment increased, many local
landowners have subdivided and sold off part of their holdings to make enough money to stay
in the area. The newcomers (primarily retirees) are building larger homes on smaller parcels,
and the growth appears to be sustained.
The Medford District is the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) largest administrative
unit, with large blocks of commercial timberland of increasing value. There is a large staff
dedicated to managing the forest resources on the public lands, which are capable of providing
significant revenue, and are managed for sustained timber yield under the O and C Act of 1937.
Fire Hazard and Risk
The area is mixed conifer forest and oak woodland, with interspersed patches of brush and
frequent large meadows (Figures 44 and 45). Much of the forest has been logged, and is second
or third generation regrowth. The climate is on the dry side, with long hot summers, and cool,
moist winters. Much of the rainfall is intercepted by the Coast Range Mountains to the west,
although the Siskiyou Mountains are high enough to receive substantial amounts of rain and
snow at the higher elevations. From May through October there is little rainfall, except from
scattered thunderstorms that form over the mountains. Summer temperatures are frequently in
the 90’s and relative humidity is low. High fire danger is normal in the summer, and in normal
years extreme fire danger is present for at least 30 days, longer in drought years.
122

Because of the checkerboard
ownership patterns, there
may be a wide variety of land
management strategies in a
relatively small geographic area.
Little of the public land is in
large enough blocks to be
managed on a strategic scale,
and there are not many large
landowners on the private side.
Much of the undeveloped land
is in absentee ownership and
held for speculation, with little
direct intensive management.
As a result, there has been a
significant build up of fuels and
much of the area is overstocked
with trees and thick with brush
undergrowth. Canopy closure is
common and ladder fuels are
abundant.
Most wildfires in the
Applegate River watershed are
human-caused, although lightning
from thunderstorms that
build up over the higher mountains
can become a significant
risk factor at times. Major
lightning busts occurred in this
area in 1987, 1995, and 2000.
The Applegate River watershed
is a fire-dependent ecosystem
with numerous fire-adapted
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Figure 44. Untreated oak/pine forest in SW Oregon.
Figure 45. Site after thinning and slash treatment.
Projects on multiple ownerships must
be linked to achieve strategic goals.
123

species of plants and animals dependent on fire to recycle nutrients, regulate plant succession
and wildlife habitat, maintain biological diversity, reduce biomass, and control insects and
diseases. Unfortunately, wildfires are becoming larger, more intense, and more difficult to
control.
Use of “closest available resources”
strengthens initial attack.
Fire Protection
Wildland fire protection is provided by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) for national forest
system lands and by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) for private lands. To avoid
duplication of services in the checkerboard ownerships, BLM has contracted fire protection for
the public lands it manages to ODF.
Private property structural fire protection is provided by a number of Fire Protection
Districts (FPDs), funded by a combination of property taxes, special assessments and bonds,
and donations. Typical of these districts is the Applegate Valley Rural Fire Protection District
No. 9 (AVRFD9) which has six stations, but only a small paid staff, with mostly volunteer
firefighters.
The fire protection agencies have a high level of cooperation, with joint training and
interagency fire management teams (Type 2) being the norm. Use of “the closest available
resources” for initial attack is practiced, regardless of jurisdiction. A typical response to a
wildfire in the Applegate River watershed would include ODF, FS, and FPD resources in the
initial attack dispatch. During critical fire weather additional contract dozers and water tenders
may be put on standby.
Preparedness
Several years ago, concerned citizens in the Applegate River Valley formed a non-profit,
tax-exempt, charitable organization called the Applegate Partnership to address critical watershed
and forest health issues in their area. One of the major focuses was to restore and improve
river conditions for migrating salmon and steelhead. To this end, the Applegate River Watershed
Council (ARWC) was formed and was successful in obtaining grant funds from a variety
of sources for several river restoration projects.
In undertaking these projects, it soon became apparent to the participants that watershed
conditions, and indeed the health of the entire ecosystem, was directly related to forest health
issues that were directly related to fire protection and fuel management issues. The scope of the
124

partnership has expanded to become a community-based resource conservation and management
project involving the federal and state natural resources agencies, conservation and environmental
groups, the timber industry, and local citizens. It facilitates cooperation in the use of
land and resource management practices that promote ecosystem health and diversity. (For
more information, see www.ARWC.org).
The partnership has come to recognize the roles (both helpful and harmful) of fire in their
watershed and the importance of managing fires (both prescribed and wild) to maximize beneficial
effects and minimize damages to the ecosystem. Its newspaper, Applegator, has become an
important and effective tool in educating local residents about the importance of hazard reduction
and preparedness for wildfires. The partnership continues to be a broad-based coalition of
players making effective contributions to significant improvements in fire protection.
The National Fire Plan in Action
The Applegate Partnership and it participating agencies were in excellent position to take
full advantage of grant funding opportunities that became available under the National Fire Plan
(NFP). In 2001, the Applegate Partnership received a NFP grant to prepare a comprehensive
fire protection strategy for the communities in the Applegate River watershed. The plan is not a
detailed tactical plan, but a compilation of collaborative concepts, strategies, and goals that can
be used to effectively plan specific land management projects and activities that will contribute
to ecosystem health.
Commonly known as the Applegate Fire Plan, the document
establishes the following primary goals:
1. To improve community awareness of the concept of
land stewardship, and foster respect for ecosystems and the
processes that maintain them;
2. To develop a wide array of strategies for fuel reduction
and fire suppression that residents can accept as sensible
precautions against catastrophic fire and that the land
managers can incorporate into their management practices;
125

3. To develop a system of emergency communications for the Applegate neighborhoods;
and
4. To restore fire-adapted species in the ecosystem, encouraging more fire-resilient forests.
Applegate Fire Plan:
Awareness
Strategies
Communications
Restoration
The plan identifies the fire regimes and condition classes that define fire hazard in the 500,000-
acre watershed. It talks about the risk of fire from a variety of human activities, and the increase in
fire occurrence that comes with increased population. It defines 19 Strategic Planning Areas (SPAs)
based on combinations of small watersheds. It covers the effects of fire on vegetation, soils, water,
air, and animals, as well as scenic and property values.
The Applegate Fire Plan suggests hazard reduction strategies that begin at the Wildland/Urban
Interface in high hazards zones (“communities at risk”), then the lands immediately adjacent to
homes and roads, then all lands in high fire hazard areas, and finally any areas where fire can contribute
to or detract from ecosystem health. It focuses on the concept of “hazard reduction without
borders,” where all agencies and
landowners cooperate to achieve
strategic goals of hazard reduction
of general benefit to the community
as a whole. Specific hazard
reduction recommendations were
developed for each of the 19 SPAs.
It describes a variety of methodologies
for fuel reduction, and the
sites to which each is most suited
(Figures 46, 47 and 48). The plan
defines various levels of defensible
space for various combinations of
slope and fuel loading, as well as
providing guidelines for fire
resistant plantings.
The Applegate Fire Plan
summarizes existing policies,
statutes, and regulations at the
Bureau of Land Management
Figure 46. BLM fuel reduction block adjacent to a subdivision in the
Applegate River Valley, OR.
126

Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management
Figure 47. “Slash Buster” at work in oak woodland in SW Oregon.
Figure 48. Southwest Oregon oak woodland after treatment.
federal, state, and local levels that
relate to fire protection. Interestingly,
the Jackson and Josephine
County fire safety requirements
are stricter than the new Oregon
state requirements which do not
take effect until 2004.
The Plan proposes a strategy
for emergency communications
planning at the neighborhood
level to insure better fire
reporting, neighborhood notification,
and receiving and disseminating
fire information from the
fire agencies. It provides information
on escape routes, safety
zones, and evacuation routes, and
checklists for home fire safety
measures. It provides resource
information for land management
planning and fire protection
planning, including possible
funding sources for projects and
guidelines for hiring contractors.
To measure accomplishments,
the Plan establishes a
monitoring team to track projects
and gather data on project effectiveness
5 and 10 years after
completion. Finally, the Plan
identifies an even dozen specific
things that agency personnel and
127

Bureau of Land Management
Figure 49. Untreated pine forest near Squires Peak Fire.
residents can do to make the plan a viable, efficient, and effective way to reduce
fire hazard, increase fire preparedness, and improve forest health in the Applegate
community.
Other National Fire Plan Projects
Applegate Valley Rural Fire Protection District No. 9, in cooperation with
ODF, has obtained two grants with total funding of $250,000 for fuel reduction
efforts in the district. The money will be used to reimburse costs to property
owners who complete projects to achieve defensible space around their homes
according to the standards established in the Applegate Fire Plan.
BLM’s Medford District has received additional funding which will allow it
to expand its fire management activities and complete more of the thinning and
fuel reduction projects it has had planned for some time. Staffing has doubled, and
project funds should support an increase in treated area from 8,000-9,000 acres per
year to 10,000-13,000 acres per year. BLM awarded a five-year, $20 million
contract to two
contractors to do fuels treatment
work on the public lands in the
Medford District (Figures 49 and
50). Because fuel loading is too
high to use prescribed fire in
initial applications, much of the
area will be thinned and mechanically
treated (e.g.
Slashbuster, etc.), then burned at
a later date.
The Medford District
received $8.6 million in NFP
funds for federal fiscal year
2002, which allows it to increase
its fuel reduction acreage target
to 23,000 acres. NFP funding
allows BLM to do more hazard
Bureau of Land Management
Figure 50. Pine forest after commercial thinning cut with slash ready
for winter burning.
128

eduction work outside the commercial timber belt and adjacent to communities at risk (Figures
51 and 52). Cost estimates for post-logging hazard reduction work in southwest Oregon are
listed as:
• Mechanical slash treatment
• Manual slash treatment
• Prescribed burn
$300-400/acre
$800-1200/acre
$200-300/acre
ODF has established cost-share fuel treatment programs to assist landowners in 18 of the
26 designated communities at risk in southwestern Oregon. Nineteen communities and nonprofit
organizations have received 29 grants totaling $4.3 million in the last two years. ODF has
received an additional $2.25 million which it has used to assist 640 landowners to achieve
defensible space.
Southwest Oregon has 26
communities-at-risk.
ODF and BLM work cooperatively with each other and with private landowners to achieve
fuel reduction projects that are linked across property lines to achieve pre-planned strategic
hazard reduction goals.
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Figure 51. Direct attack dozer line contained the Squires Peak Fire in
areas that had been thinned.
Figure 52. Backing surface fire in thinned pine/fir/oak stand.
129

The Squires Peak Fire
The Squires Peak Fire began from a lightning strike during a typical summer afternoon
thunderstorm in the vicinity of Squires Peak, about 17 miles west of Ashland, Oregon on Saturday,
July 13, 2002 at about 1700 hours.
There was little rainfall with the thunderstorm, and the
conditions were just right for the fire to burn aggressively in
heavy fuels all through the first night. On Sunday, the fire continued
to spread, with suppression efforts being frustrated by inaccessible
terrain, erratic winds, and spot fires. On Monday and
Tuesday, suppression efforts started to pay off, and where fuel
treatment projects (logging, thinning, burns, etc.) had taken
place, the fire remained a surface fire vulnerable to direct attack
(Figure 52). Crews were able to construct direct dozer and hand
lines in many areas, and go indirect with follow-up burning out
in other areas. Containment appeared not far off.
On Tuesday evening,
strong down-slope winds of up
to 20 mph caused spotting
outside containment lines and
the fire began to make significant
runs down and across
drainages, with sustained runs
Bureau of Land Management
Figure 53. Crown fire in unthinned pine forest; Squires Peak Fire,
Oregon.
130

in the crowns of the trees. More
spot fires spread fire into multiple
drainages, and the fire
moved off of Squires Peak into
several populated drainages. The
fire behavior pattern became one
of backing fires under thinned
timber stands and moving down
slope without the effect of wind,
but making strong runs in
unthinned timber stands (Figures
53 and 54) and uphill on south
slopes, with torching, crowning,
and multiple spot fires (Figures
55). Numerous homes and
outbuildings in the rural interface
were threatened, and many
families evacuated. Most families
were well prepared, thanks to
their understanding of the issues
identified in the Applegate Fire
Plan.
Bureau of Land Management
Figure 54. Stand in Figure 10 after Squires Peak Fire.
Sustained crown fires swept whole
slopes in unthinned timber stands.
On Wednesday, erratic
winds continued to fan the fire
across containment lines and to
drive spot fires into new terrain.
On Thursday, ODF fire managers
drew “a line in the sand” at
Sterling Creek Road. Taking
advantage of the terrain, an area
where fuels had been treated, and
more favorable winds, the fire
was contained without crossing
the road.
Bureau of Land Management
Figure 55. Home with defensible space survived the Squire Peaks
Fire.
131

The Squires Peak Fire was contained at 3,000 acres
with no homes lost and nobody seriously injured. Cooperation
between the responsible agencies and open dialogue
with the local residents contributed materially to a
successful suppression effort.
On August 22, 2002, following another siege of
lightning fires in southwest Oregon, and during the height
of the massive Biscuit Fire some thirty miles to the west, President George W. Bush stood at a
spot inside the Squires Peak Fire where the fire had burned intensely through a heavy stand of
timber scheduled to be logged, followed by slash treatment and prescribed burning. Against a
background of blackened trees, the President called for changes in federal policy and regulations
that would make it easier for the FS and BLM to conduct thinning, slash treatment, and
prescribed burns that would reduce fire hazard and contribute to improved forest health. He
also called on Congress to provide funding to implement the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan,
which could yield up to a billion board feet of lumber and 100,000 jobs while reducing fire
hazard and improving forest health.
The Squires Peak Fire certainly was not large, especially in a year with two
fires approaching half a million acres, but it may have a significant impact as the
icon for expanded efforts to thin our forests and reduce fire hazards.
The Indian Fire, Prescott, Arizona
Prescott, Arizona is a rapidly growing community situated in the pine forested
mountains of central Arizona, adjacent to the Prescott National Forest. Nearly
50,000 people live in the Prescott metropolitan area and major growth has been the
hallmark of the last decade, with many of the new arrivals being retirees intent on
escaping the stress of large cities or the brutal winters of the Great Lakes region.
At an elevation of 5,350 feet, Prescott offers attractive scenery, cool summers, and
mild winters to its residents. It also offers the opportunity for high intensity, large,
damaging wildfires (Figure 56).
Figure 56. Wildland/urban interface in Prescott, Arizona.
At lower elevations of the Prescott Basin the vegetation consists of mixed
brush species such as manzanita, mountain mahogany, scrub oak and cliff rose,
132

with scattered pinyon pine and
juniper trees. As elevation
increases, so does the density of
Ponderosa Pine. In many parts of
the metropolitan area, the brush
is high, thick, and decadent.
Over the last 50 years, the Ponderosa
Pine forest has changed
significantly in character, primarily
as a result of logging and fire
exclusion. Much of the existing
forest, especially on the state and
private lands, but also on the
national forest, is overstocked
with heavy undergrowth of brush
fuels. During the last few years,
a lingering drought in the Southwest
U.S. has resulted in high
mortality of all forest plant
species. The brush species have
reacted to water stress by increasing
their dead/live fuel ratios,
some of which were already high
due to the advanced age of the
brush fields. In many parts of
Prescott, the scenery looks
remarkably similar to Southern
California fuel types. The
Ponderosa Pine forest has suffered
increased epidemics of
disease and insects, and many of
the trees are dead or dying.
Aerial fuels are abundant, allowing
surface fires plenty of opportunity
to climb into the crowns of
Figure 57. Prescribed fire in Ponderosa Pine, Arizona.
Figure 58. Fuel wood cut and stacked; slash lopped, ready for
broadcast burning.
133

the pine trees. Without normal summer “monsoon” rainstorms, the hot, dry desert climate
provides the perfect weather conditions for high intensity wildfires. Normal summer monsoons
have occurred only once in the last six years.
Prescott, AZ is a community-at-risk.
Homes are being built at an increasing pace, with subdivisions creeping up the mountains
on the outskirts of town. Early subdivisions were built without fire protection water systems
and with narrow, winding roads, frequently with only one way in and out. No statewide fire
defense regulations are in place. Many people, alarmed how many trees are already dead, are
reluctant to support additional thinning. There are no legal requirements or financial incentives
to establish defensible space around homes. When you add increasing numbers of homes to
this volatile wildland setting, you have successfully created the recipe for a large, damaging
wildfire to sweep through the wildland/urban interface with great risks to people and their
homes.
Pre-suppression Activities
The primary public land management agencies in the Prescott metropolitan area are the
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (FS), Prescott National Forest and the Arizona State Land Department
(ASLD). Other than Arizona Public Services (APS), an electric utility, there are few major
landowners in the private sector, so the private lands tend to be in small ownerships, usually
less than an acre in size.
The Prescott National Forest (PNF) has an active fuel management program, with additional
funding from the National Fire Plan providing increased opportunities for hazard reduction
projects of cost-effective scale. The forest staff recognizes the necessity of protecting the
adjacent private lands from wildfires originating on the forest, as well as the need to protect
forest resources from the increased fire risks posed by urbanization of the neighboring wildlands.
Considerable effort has been directed at fuel management projects on the windward edge
of the forest southwest of town (Figure 59).
The State lands tend to be in scattered, one section (640 acres) blocks, although there are
some patches of contiguous blocks in the Prescott area that provide opportunity for macro-land
management projects. The ASLD Fire Management Division has less than thirty full time
permanent employees for the whole state, so it must leverage its meager resources by entering
into cooperative arrangements with private landowners and other public agencies in order to
accomplish integrated fuel hazard reduction in strategic blocks.
134

Arizona Public Services
(APS) is fully cognizant of both
the risk of wildfire originating
from its electrical utility operations
and the risk of wildfire to
its electric utility infrastructure.
For example, APS is currently
building the world’s largest solar
power plant (450KW) on a 50-
acre site near the Prescott airport.
Not wanting to find out what
effect the smoke and soot from a
major forest fire could do to this
facility, the utility has become a
major player in hazard reduction
efforts in the Prescott area.
Figure 59. Thinning with fuel wood removal; slash piled for burning.
Formed to address the threat of large, damaging wildfires in the wildland-urban interface,
the Prescott Area Wildland/Urban Interface Commission (PAWUIC) consists of civic leaders
and interested citizens with advisors from the land management and fire protection agencies.
Born a dozen years ago under the leadership of the Prescott City Manager, the chairman of the
Yavapai County Board of Supervisors and the supervisor of the Prescott N.F., the PAWUIC,
with initial funding from APS, has been successfully pursuing various grant funds for hazard
reduction projects in the Prescott interface.
Key players:
Arizona State Lands Dept.
Prescott National Forest
Prescott Fire Department
Central Yavapai Fire District
Arizona Public Services
In addition to creation of an interagency operating and evacuation plan for wildfires, one
tangible example of their efforts is the creation of two brush fire crews operated jointly by the
Prescott Fire Department (PFD) and the Central Yavapai Fire District (CYFD). These fullytrained
fire crews are equipped with trucks, chippers, and tools, and perform hazard reduction
work on private lands in targeted high hazard areas of the wildland/urban interface. In one
target subdivision in a high hazard area, more than half of all the lots have already been treated.
While local politics still make stiff fire regulations unpopular, the commission has greatly
increased public awareness of the defensible space concept.
135

ASLD, using funding from NFP grants and the Prescott brush crew, has been able to
pretreat blocks of state lands within the metropolitan area in preparation for prescribed burns
aimed at reducing fuel volumes and lowering age class in the brush species. This type of
project has the potential to decrease fire hazard, improve scenic value, and improve forage
value for wildlife, an important part of the living in the woods experience.
The Prescott National Forest conducts several prescribed burn operations each year, as
well as brush crushing and tree thinning operations, both for fire hazard reduction and insect
control purposes.
Defensible space is being created with
National Fire Plan grant funds.
Fire Suppression Organization
The primary providers of fire protection services in the Prescott Basin are the Prescott Fire
Department (PFD), the Central Yavapai Fire District (CYFD), and the Prescott National Forest
(PNF).
The Prescott Fire Department has five stations and operates two wildland engines in
addition to its regular structure engines. PFD has a Wildland/Urban Interface Hazard Fuels
Reduction Team, operates an interagency central dispatch, and has an automatic aid agreement
with the CYFD.
The Central Yavapai Fire District has four stations housing 3 engines, one quint, 2 water
tenders, and one patrol rig and is a combination paid/volunteer department serving the area
outside the City of Prescott.
The Prescott National Forest currently staffs six engines, one helicopter (Type 3) with fly
crew, six lookouts, and fields 10 fire prevention technicians. It also has available one hotshot
crew and one heavy air tanker, both considered national resources and subject to frequent offforest
dispatches. Initial attack capability during the current drought has been increased by the
addition of one medium air tanker.
The Forest Service engines are stationed in the PFD and CYFD stations during the wildland
fire season and the personnel from all three agencies, train, work and respond together,
using the “closest resource” dispatch philosophy. Aircraft respond on initial attack dispatches
in the wildland/urban interface during high fire danger periods.
136

The ASLD Fire Management Division provides coordination of interagency response to
multi-jurisdictional wildfires and pays for local government fire apparatus responding to wildfires
outside their own jurisdiction.
The Indian Fire
It was a warm, sunny, day with a normal southwest breeze in Prescott on Wednesday, May
15, 2002. At about 1455 hours personnel at both Prescott Fire Stations 71 and 72 observed a
building column of smoke to the south of town. Soon 9-1-1 calls confirmed a wildfire on
Indian Creek Road near the
campground. Units from the
PFD, CYFD, and PNF responded
simultaneously. Upon arrival of
the first units at the scene, seven
minutes later, the fire was already
10-15 acres burning intensely
and crowning in pine timber. It
appears the fire had been burning
for some time before being
noticed.
Delayed report gives fire a head start.
The fire spread quickly
toward Highway 89 and was
already 100 acres with long range
spotting occurring within the first
30 minutes. Utilizing the strategy
identified in the local pre-plan, a
command post was established at the Indian Creek Campground and arriving chief officers
immediately given division assignments, including the formation of a Structure Protection
Group, as the fire was headed directly for the Ponderosa Park subdivision. Residents of the
area crowded the roadways trying to reach their homes. Significant resources were ordered for
structure protection assignments early on.
As the fire increased in size and intensity, it was apparent that evacuation of the Ponderosa
Park and Timberridge subdivisions, if not a much larger area, would be necessary. The Yavapai
137

County Office of Emergency Management
(YCOEM) began mobilizing
additional resources according to the
interagency operating plan. Before
nightfall, some 3,000 people would
be evacuated from their homes and
report to evacuation centers established
by the Red Cross and other
relief agencies.
3,000 people evacuated.
By 1700 hours, the fire had
crossed Highway 89 near the summit,
destroying a historic forest service
station on the way, and was more
than 500 acres and running hard
toward town. A total of six air
tankers and one heavy-lift helicopter
were now operating on the fire.
Within one half hour of the opening
of the Prescott Emergency Operations
Center (EOC), three subdivisions
were being evacuated and buses had
been ordered to evacuate the campers
from Chapel Rock Camp. The fire
had reached 900 acres (Figure 60).
At this time it was apparent that
a stand would have to be made at the
head of the fire to keep it from
burning directly into the City. Timing
and circumstances dictated that
the stand would be made at the edge
Figure 60. The Indian Fire headed for the City of Prescott.
of the Cathedral Pines subdivision, directly bordering the Prescott NF. Structure protection
forces were put in to place, residents were evacuated, residences were triaged, and wildland
crews began a burnout around the structures at the edge of the subdivision in an area that had
138

previously been mechanically
thinned and burned by the Forest
Service in anticipation of just
such a fire event.
As the head of the fire entered
the fuel treatment area, fire
intensity diminished so that air
drops became effective, and the
wind died down enough that the
firing operation was manageable.
There was still plenty of excitement,
as a spot fire hidden by the
heavy smoke ran through a brush
patch below a house, igniting it.
An adjacent house ignited from
radiant heat from the first structure,
and two more houses up the hill
had spot fires start on the roofs before suppression forces could knock the heat out of the head.
Figure 61. High intensity wildfire; salvage logged and slash chipped
in foreground.
Fire spread from first house to
three others.
By nightfall, the combination of aggressive fire fighting,
close air support, reduced wind, cooler temperatures,
and higher humidity gave firefighters the upper hand. The
fire was contained the next day at 1,360 acres, with 4 structures
lost and one heavily damaged. Fifteen houses that
were within the perimeter of the fire had been saved.
Nearly 80% of the area burned by the Indian Fire
suffered a high intensity burn; with nearly 100% kill of the
second growth Ponderosa Pine forest. Arson is suspected as
the fire cause and a reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of
the responsible party (Figure 61).
139

While the Indian Fire was certainly one of the most serious fires in recent history in the Prescott
area, it had the potential to be a disaster of major proportions. More than 2,000 homes were in the
immediate path of the fire, nestled in woods made decadent by insects and disease and made tinder
dry by years of drought. Preplanning, hazard reduction, interagency cooperation, effective suppression
actions, and a little luck kept the Indian Fire from becoming a conflagration.
The Rodeo-Chediski Fire, Arizona
The Mogollon Rim cleaves the mountains of eastern Arizona as dramatically as the Great
Wall once isolated China. The vertical rock face of the rim, reaching more than 1,000 vertical
feet, makes travel difficult at best. From a distance, the vast expanse of bare rock wall would
appear to be a formidable firebreak, but it proved no great obstacle for the Rodeo-Chediski Fire,
the largest wildfire in Arizona history.
North of the rim the country
tilts gently toward the north,
falling from the cool pine forests
of the Pinetop-Lakeside resort
communities at 7,000 feet to the
high desert scrub on the Colorado
Plateau south of the Colorado
River and the Interstate 40
corridor between Winslow and
Holbrook, around 5,000 feet in
elevation (Figure 62). The transition
from desert to conifer forest
is dramatic as you head south
from Holbrook and climb toward
the luxuriant green forests along
the rim (Figure 63). Along the
north side of the rim are nestled a
dozen resort and summer home
communities, where residents
and visitors alike are somewhat
protected from the oppressive
heat of the desert summers.
Figure 62. Unthinned Ponderosa Pine forest near Rodeo, Arizona.
140

South of the rim, the Fort Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations cover 2.6 million
acres of high desert and forest punctuated by scattered rugged mountains and deep river canyons.
Two major watersheds, the White River and the Black River, flow out of the reservations,
join to form the Salt River and flow down toward the Valley of the Sun and the Phoenix metropolitan
area. Elevations range from the 11, 560 foot Mount Baldy in the White Mountains on
the east side down to the 3,000
foot level on the west and south
ends of the reservations. Vegetation
varies from high desert
brush and scrub through dense
Ponderosa Pine forest to mixed
conifer forest on the shoulders of
the high peaks. The forest
supports two sawmills that are a
significant source of income for
the White Mountain Apache
tribe. Several small towns are
scattered across the reservations,
but much of the country is open
and undeveloped wildland. Only
two major highways cross the
reservations, and much of the
land area is inaccessible beyond
a network of gravel and dirt Figure 63. The fire is torching in pines.
logging roads.
Live fuel moistures were at record low
levels.
The area is dry, with much of the precipitation from sporadic scattered thunderstorms that
occur frequently during the summer “monsoon” rain period. Winter snows at the higher elevations
bank much of the moisture required to support the pine forest and keep the small streams
trickling down through the desert towards the cities. For six of the last seven years, the area has
experienced a severe drought. At the lower elevations, much of the pinyon pine in the pinyonjuniper
cover type of the desert highlands has died. In the pine forests, insect and disease epidemics
have killed 20-30% of the Ponderosa Pine. The forests in the spring of 2002 looked
gray-brown and tired instead of lush green. Live fuel moisture readings in the brush and timber
were at record low levels.
141

Fort Apache Agency:
1.7 million acres
400 fires per year
10 fire engines
2 bulldozers
1 helicopter
5 lookouts
Wildland Fire Protection
Fire protection for the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is provided by the USDI Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), Fort Apache Agency. To cover the 400 or so fires each year on the 1.7
million acres in its jurisdiction, the agency fields a suppression force including ten engines
(Type 3), two bulldozers, one helicopter (Type 3), and five lookouts. Several well-trained and
experienced Southwest Fire Fighter (SWFF) crews are also based on the reservation. Unfortunately,
under the BIA’s Fire Management Program Analysis (FMPA) processes, the Fort Apache
Agency has been targeted for an 18% budget cut in the 2003 federal fiscal year, even as the
drought continues.
At the north edge of the reservations, on top of the Mogollon Rim, wildland fire protection
is provided by the USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. A small proportion
of the fire also burned on the Tonto National Forest. Fire management operations are under
the Southwest Area Coordinating Group via the Southwest Coordination Center (SWCC) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. This group coordinates fire response for the federal agencies in
Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas. The Apache-Sitgreaves forest has six fire engines
spread across the top of the Mogollon Rim.
The dozen or so small communities scattered along the top of the Mogollon Rim are
protected by individual fire protection districts. These districts are mostly all volunteer, with
only a few paid personnel. While most have wildland engines, the training and experience
levels vary greatly, and wildfire capabilities suffer in the summer as many volunteer firefighters
take seasonal positions with the federal agencies.
The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Fire Management Division is responsible for
fire protection on the blocks of state land in the area, and coordinates the response of local fire
agencies to wildland fires throughout the state. ASLD has limited staff and only a few engines.
Fuel Management Projects
The federal land management agencies (FS, BIA, and BLM) and the ASLD Fire Management
Division have long recognized that a major fire on the reservations, driven by prevailing
southwest winds, could crest the Mogollon Rim and threaten any of the small towns on top. To
attempt to cope with this threat, they have for many years engaged in a series of fuel reduction
and fuel break projects on top of the rim. These projects are intended to reduce the intensity of
wildfires approaching the developed areas and provide defensible space in which suppression
142

actions can be safely undertaken. Unfortunately, these projects have not been coordinated
between the federal, state, and local agencies to tie together into an interconnected strategic
barrier that ignores jurisdictional boundaries the way wildfires do.
Mechanical clearing and prescribed fires are used frequently to reduce fuel accumulations,
especially slash following logging operations. While increased funding for several of the agencies
through the National Fire Plan (NFP) has made it possible to undertake more and larger
projects in the last few years, the area of concern and the amount of work needed to reverse 50
years of fire exclusion is immense.
The Fire Story
The fire situation at the
Fort Apache Agency and on the
neighboring Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forest could not have
been much worse in June of
2002. Another dry winter,
followed by a warm, dry spring
had reduced fuel moisture
levels in both brush and timber
fuel types to record lows (100
hour fuels = 2%). The second
week in June was so dry that
several area weather stations
were recording new record low
relative humidity readings.
100-hour fuel moisture
was 2 percent
On the afternoon on June
18, 2002 a new fire was reported near the town of Cibeque in the northwest corner of the
Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Set by an arsonist at the bottom of a slope in flashy fuels,
the Rodeo fire was already 15 acres and spreading rapidly uphill on the arrival of the first
air tanker only 13 minutes after the first report of the fire. Despite a heavy commitment of
suppression resources, the fire raged unchecked. On June 19 th , the fire went from about
1,000 acres to 50,000 + acres in less than nine hours (Figures 64 and 65).
143

By the morning of June 20 th , the Rodeo fire was more than 55,000 acres, and equipment
and personnel from outside the area were reporting to staging in large numbers. Then
“the other shoe dropped”. At about 0700 hours a lost hiker set a signal fire in hopes of
attracting rescuers. It worked. An immediate heavy response of resources from the staging
area was diverted to the new fire, which was nearly contained by the initial attack crews at
about 46 acres. But the daytime southwest winds picked up, driving the fire upslope into
the timber on a sustained run that burned 10,000 acres in the first day.
Figure 64. The Chedisk-Rodeo Fire burned over 460 thousand acres.
144

The Rodeo-Chediski Fire threatened
half a dozen communities
simultaneously!
These two
major fires
continued to
grow for the
next several days. They were driven by
moderate SW winds (15-30 mph) in the
initial stages. When the wind wasn’t blowing,
the fires burned with such intensity in
the heavy, dry fuels that they become plume
dominated. In the late afternoon, when the
icecaps on top of the convection columns
collapsed, the fires spread rapidly in all
directions, defying the containment strategies
each day.
Figure 65. The Rodeo-Chediski Fire threatened
half a dozen communities simultaneously!
On June 23 rd , the two fires merged into one giant
conflagration that burned over 100,000 acres in that
single day, probably a record sustained run for a wildland
fire. On most days, the only places that crown
fires were not sustained were in the small patches of
forest where hazard reduction projects had been completed
within the last 5-7 years.
145

Thousands of residents evacuated.
The conflagration continued its march northward, and barely hesitated at the formidable
Mogollon Rim, spotting across a wide front into the pine forest outside the rim
communities. The strategic fire planning for the Mogollon Rim had predicted a wildfire
impacting a town on the rim, but not six communities at once. In the rim communities, hit
and run aggressive fire fighting became the norm as the fire swirled, danced, skipped, and
spotted across the forest, between houses and over roads. Here, the fuel loading was extremely
heavy, as few residents had bought in to the concept of defensible space or thinning
the forest in their yards. The largest of the rim communities, the town of Show Low
(pop. 7,700, plus 5,000+ tourists in summer) was being threatened by a crown fire more
than two miles wide advancing at a sustained rate of spread of 2-3 miles per hour. Thousands
of residents fled to the north (Figure 66).
A change in wind direction saved Show Low itself, and the weather began to moderate,
with less wind and higher humidity giving firefighters a fighting chance. Even with a
massive response of fire suppression resources from all over the West, parts of the Rodeo-
Chedeski Fire were not contained until they spread out into the light fuels of the high
desert.
The Rodeo-Chedeski Fire
became one for the record
books, burning 468,863 acres,
and 446 structures (including
200+ homes) in seven towns.
Nearly 30,000 people were
evacuated, some for more than
a week. The fire consumed
nearly 400 million board feet of
timber on just the Fort Apache
Reservation, probably another
250+ million on the national
forests. Salvage logging of the
burned area will keep the two
White Mountain Apache Tribe
sawmills busy for a couple of
Figure 66. Structure survived despite intense burn.
146

years, but after that many jobs
and much income will be lost
for a long time.
The fire cost at least $60
million to control, $30 million
in burned area rehabilitation
efforts, and caused nearly a
billion dollars in direct damages,
including $42 million in
structure (and property tax
revenue) losses. The tributaries
of the Salt River, an important
part of the water supply for the
2.8 million people of the Phoenix
metropolitan area, will
remain at risk from the fireflood
cycle for several years.
The forests of the White
Mountains will eventually
recover, most of the burned
homes will be rebuilt, the
streams will run clear again,
and eventually things will
return to “normal”. But
eventually is a long time if
you’ve sunk your life savings
into a retirement home in the
forest or your job depends on
logging, recreation, or tourism
(Figure 67).
Figure 67. Several of these cabins were destroyed by the fire;
rebuilding started immediately.
147

148

Wildland Fire Activities
Numbers of Fires and Acres Burned
by
Agency
for the
2002 Fire Season
149

Western United States
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agencies 25,097 2,198,083 1,867 75,314 1 1 26,965 2,273,398
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 7,824 2,171,407 3,106 254,384 269 39,974 11,199 2,465,765
Bureau of Land Management 2,403 1,131,787 319 98,772 26 9,157 2,748 1,239,716
National Park Service 342 169,356 102 22,004 103 7,725 547 199,085
Fish and Wildlife Service 226 355,836 348 77,739 574 433,575
Bureau of Indian Affairs 3,593 415,527 88 50,804 3,681 466,331
TOTAL 14,388 4,243,913 3,963 503,703 398 56,856 18,749 4,804,472
Other Fire Agencies 3,031 252,121 14 3,727 2,957 219,357
TOTAL 42,516 6,694,117 5,844 582,744 399 56,857 48,759 7,333,718
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers and the data reporting systems of
the various states.
150

Alaska
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 399 802,515 399 802,515
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 21 17 21 17
Alaska Fire Service(BLM)** 37 702,783 37 702,783
National Park Service** 10 133,810 10 133,810
Fish and Wildlife Service** 32 341,451 1 1,085 33 342,536
Bureau of Indian Affairs** 1 4 1 4
TOTAL 101 1,178,065 1 1,085 102 1,179,150
Other Fire Agencies 53 118,443 53 118,443
TOTAL 553 2,099,023 1 1,085 554 2,100,108
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
**The Alaska Fire Service provides wildland fire protection for the US Department of Interior agencies in Alaska.
151

Arizona
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 530 46,645 530 46,645
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 1,197 330,056 1,164 34,222 2,361 364,278
Bureau of Land Management 153 8,475 14 15,706 167 24,181
National Park Service 37 1,887 4 3,997 1 12 42 5,896
Fish and Wildlife Service 23 6,785 1 145 24 6,930
Bureau of Indian Affairs 1,038 297,321 18 41,506 1,056 338,827
TOTAL 2,448 644,524 1,201 95,576 1 12 3,650 740,112
Other Fire Agencies 52 48 52 48
TOTAL 3,030 691,217 1,201 95,576 1 12 4,232 786,805
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
152

California
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 5,759 112,810 5,759 112,810
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 1,610 365,945 565 54,922 195 1 2,370 420,868
Bureau of Land Management 118 32,767 19 1,546 137 34,313
National Park Service 55 923 47 6,938 86 4,137 188 11,998
Fish and Wildlife Service 26 956 23 24,684 49 25,640
Bureau of Indian Affairs 318 11,014 13 272 331 11,286
TOTAL 2,127 411,605 667 88,362 281 4,138 3,075 504,105
Other Fire Agencies
TOTAL 7,886 524,415 667 88,362 281 4,138 8,834 616,915
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
153

Colorado
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 3,409 244,252 17 467 1 1 3,427 244,720
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 517 299,927 26 5,718 3 22,592 546 328,237
Bureau of Land Management 419 27,909 13 2,421 14 619 446 30,949
National Park Service 34 7,707 5 191 39 7,898
Fish and Wildlife Service 3 18 1 6 4 24
Bureau of Indian Affairs 126 2,186 3 16 129 2,202
TOTAL 1,099 337,747 48 8,352 17 23,211 1,164 369,310
Other Fire Agencies 75 13,817 8 1,920 83 15,737
TOTAL 4,583 595,816 73 10,739 18 23,212 4,674 629,767
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the RMACC 2002 Annual Report.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
154

Guam
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
Forestry Agency 491 2,434 491 2,434
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
TOTAL
Other Fire Agencies
TOTAL 491 2,434 491 2,434
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
155

Hawaii
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 188 2,377 188 2,377
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service 1 3,660 1 3,660
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
TOTAL 1 3,660 1 3,660
Other Fire Agencies
TOTAL 189 6,037 189 6,037
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
156

Idaho
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 386 7,972 46 3,901 432 11,873
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 930 17,077 374 28,871 35 7,688 1,339 53,636
Bureau of Land Management 205 43,570 14 12,817 219 56,387
National Park Service 1 1 1 1
Fish and Wildlife Service 1 755 2 30 3 785
Bureau of Indian Affairs 8 10 8 10
TOTAL 1,145 61,413 390 41,718 35 7,688 1,570 110,819
Other Fire Agencies 27 20,736 27 20,736
TOTAL 1,558 90,121 436 45,619 35 7,688 2,029 143,428
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
157

Kansas
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 6,024 93,017 6,024 93,017
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 10 1,422 10 1,422
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service
Fish and Wildlife Service 8 304 45 4,865 53 5,169
Bureau of Indian Affairs 4 106 5 500 9 606
TOTAL 22 1,832 50 5,365 72 7,197
Other Fire Agencies
TOTAL 6,046 94,849 50 5,365 6,096 100,214
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations. Special Note:This is for approximately the first nine months of 2002 only.
158

Montana
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 471 28,811 8 254 479 29,065
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 656 77,859 336 15,407 18 1,156 1,010 94,422
Bureau of Land Management 61 7,085 15 5,920 76 13,005
National Park Service 10 1 1 65 8 34 19 100
Fish and Wildlife Service 15 807 15 807
Bureau of Indian Affairs 350 8,420 9 725 359 9,145
TOTAL 1,092 94,172 361 22,117 26 1,190 1,479 117,479
Other Fire Agencies* 2,520 10,288 4 1,693 2,524 11,981
TOTAL 4,083 133,271 373 24,064 26 1,190 4,482 158,525
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
159

Nebraska
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 1,835 90,562 1,835 90,562
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 11 136 11 136
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service 4 9 1 618 5 627
Fish and Wildlife Service 30 282 50 7,816 80 8,098
Bureau of Indian Affairs
TOTAL 45 427 51 8,434 96 8,861
Other Fire Agencies
TOTAL 1,880 90,989 51 8,434 1,931 99,423
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
160

Nevada
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 269 2,833 269 2,833
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 152 42,066 5 172 157 42,238
Bureau of Land Management 499 34,149 49 14,567 12 8,528 560 57,244
National Park Service 12 6 8 814 20 820
Fish and Wildlife Service 9 456 2 480 11 936
Bureau of Indian Affairs 10 316 10 316
TOTAL 682 76,993 64 16,033 12 8,528 758 101,554
Other Fire Agencies 14 818 14 818
TOTAL 965 80,644 64 16,033 12 8,528 1,041 105,205
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
161

New Mexico
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 794 226,492 794 226,492
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 558 90,978 48 15,797 8 5,560 614 112,335
Bureau of Land Management 47 13,819 9 1,962 56 15,781
National Park Service 8 11,012 1 380 9 11,392
Fish and Wildlife Service 8 85 9 4,577 17 4,662
Bureau of Indian Affairs 384 13,784 4 90 388 13,874
TOTAL 1,005 129,678 70 22,426 9 5,940 1,084 158,044
Other Fire Agencies
TOTAL 1,799 356,170 70 22,426 9 5,940 1,878 384,536
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
162

North Dakota
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 325 29,565 13 2,434 338 31,999
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 4 761 9 1,769 13 2,530
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service 1 1 10 2,417 11 2,418
Fish and Wildlife Service 20 1,418 134 19,341 154 20,759
Bureau of Indian Affairs 658 27,067 658 27,067
TOTAL 683 29,247 153 23,527 836 52,774
Other Fire Agencies 2 114 2 114
TOTAL 1,008 58,812 168 26,075 1,176 84,887
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
163

Oregon
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 1,175 99,047 1,754 67,220 2,929 166,267
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 1,127 752,782 324 50,891 2 1 1,453 803,674
Bureau of Land Management 319 153,878 156 37,097 475 190,975
National Park Service 20 14 7 62 27 76
Fish and Wildlife Service 15 1,839 9 6,193 24 8,032
Bureau of Indian Affairs 81 2,829 17 4,316 98 7,145
TOTAL 1,562 911,342 513 98,559 2 1 2,077 1,009,902
Other Fire Agencies
TOTAL 2,737 1,010,389 2,267 165,779 2 1 5,006 1,176,169
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
164

South Dakota
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 725 166,928 1 150 726 167,078
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 170 1,822 10 2,977 180 4,799
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service 14 1,072 3 1,469 17 2,541
Fish and Wildlife Service 6 33 42 5,651 48 5,684
Bureau of Indian Affairs 327 15,788 327 15,788
TOTAL 517 18,715 55 10,097 572 28,812
Other Fire Agencies 107 12,862 107 12,862
TOTAL 1,349 198,505 56 10,247 1,405 208,752
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
165

Utah
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency 613 68,534 21 595 634 69,129
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 342 101,135 23 27,501 2 345 367 128,981
Bureau of Land Management 369 70,012 18 5,055 387 75,067
National Park Service 29 35 7 1,209 36 1,244
Fish and Wildlife Service 5 1 425 6 425
Bureau of Indian Affairs 67 5,326 1 7 68 5,333
TOTAL 812 176,508 50 34,197 2 345 864 211,050
Other Fire Agencies 6 127 6 127
TOTAL 1,431 245,169 71 34,792 2 345 1,504 280,306
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
166

Washington
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 889 10,063 6 292 895 10,355
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 337 58,220 198 10,858 4 11 539 69,089
Bureau of Land Management 21 5,123 21 5,123
National Park Service 36 69 3 192 39 261
Fish and Wildlife Service 24 627 28 2,441 52 3,068
Bureau of Indian Affairs 195 15,537 18 3,372 213 18,909
TOTAL 613 79,576 247 16,863 4 11 864 96,450
Other Fire Agencies 1 2,000 1 2,000
TOTAL 1,503 91,639 253 17,155 4 11 1,760 108,805
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
167

Wyoming
Wildland Fire Activity Summary
Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
No. Fires
No. Acres
Burned
State Forestry Agency* 815 163,226 1 1 816 163,227
Federal Land Management Agencies
Forest Service 182 31,204 24 5,279 2 2,620 208 39,103
Bureau of Land Management 155 32,217 12 1,681 10 167 33,908
National Park Service 70 9,149 6 4,032 7 3,162 83 16,343
Fish and Wildlife Service 1 20 1 20
Bureau of Indian Affairs 26 15,819 26 15,819
TOTAL 434 88,409 42 10,992 9 5,792 485 105,193
Other Fire Agencies 88 36,491 88 36,491
TOTAL 1,337 288,126 43 10,993 9 5,792 1,389 304,911
Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers.
* State provided statistics were used in the caculations.
168

State Fire Statistics
Numbers of Fires and Acres Burned
by
Cause and Size Class
1998 through 2002
Number of Fires
Number of Acres Burned
No. of Fires
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
16,894
26,439
25,324
25,494 25,097
20,936 19,180 23,301 20,390
19,577
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Years
No. of Acres Burned
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2,612,619
2,213,124 2,198,083
1,350,726
1,430,853 1,309,405
648,144
644,237 552,134
564,356
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Years
169

Western State Composite Statistics
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
19,180 564,356 23,301 1,309,405 25,494 2,213,124 20,390 648,144 25,097 2,198,083 22,692 1,386,622
No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
%
Lightning 2,663 264,614 14 2,396 370,301 10 4,051 1,106,661 16 3,270 293,093 16 3,270 1,300,528 13 3,130 667,039 14
Camper 623 2,411 3 884 6,912 4 851 8,917 3 857 7,345 4 731 15,177 3 789 8,152 3
Smoker 757 6,191 4 950 23,121 4 1,056 25,202 4 704 4,364 3 1,294 9,318 5 952 13,639 4
Debris Burning 4,401 47,862 23 5,347 146,606 23 5,168 149,776 20 3,159 23,982 15 4,658 97,948 19 4,547 93,235 20
Arson 2,014 39,577 11 1,304 81,293 6 2,089 121,566 8 1,987 26,533 10 1,971 115,612 8 1,873 76,916 8
Equipment 2,935 64,061 15 3,724 186,500 16 3,375 234,618 13 3,539 148,604 17 3,012 183,283 12 3,317 163,413 15
Railroads 431 6,050 2 653 133,387 3 695 78,188 3 204 3,819 1 335 2,814 1 464 44,852 2
Children 601 7,090 3 512 2,579 2 546 1,908 2 552 1,539 3 478 6,875 2 538 3,998 2
Miscellaneous 4,755 139,526 25 7,501 359,185 32 7,663 488,632 30 6,118 141,589 30 9,348 468,899 37 7,077 319,566 31
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
No. Acres
% No. Fires
%
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
Burned
Class A 9,864 14,430 51 12,601 1,155 54 11,246 7,525 44 11,975 3,975 59 13,341 5,554 53 11,805 6,528 52
Class B 6,792 9,630 35 7,139 13,182 31 9,529 17,184 37 6,494 11,128 32 7,653 22,469 30 7,521 14,719 33
Class C 1,951 42,003 10 2,730 49,291 12 3,588 73,534 14 1,485 40,926 7 2,323 69,105 9 2,415 54,972 11
Class D 308 38,922 2 436 45,400 2 544 77,172 2 228 32,711 1 377 55,582 2 379 49,957 2
Class E 162 86,407 1 235 95,617 1 332 154,116 1 118 54,736 1 180 88,650 1 205 95,905 1
Class F 82 154,229 0 108 220,812 0 161 370,400 1 64 121,359 0 121 308,926 0 107 235,145 0
Class G 21 227,118 0 52 883,948 0 94 1,515,724 0 26 384,184 0 91 1,699,639 0 57 942,123 0
170

Alaska
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
338 63,708 333 145,806 259 35,197 297 87,127 399 802,515 325 226,871
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 16 62,922 5 31 144,752 9 13 32,892 5 18 868 6 80 584,782 20 32 165,243 10
Camper 49 43 14 42 9 13 41 643 16 50 262 17 34 1,314 9 43 454 13
Smoker 9 2 3 8 1 2 6 1,121 2 11 1 4 7 3 2 8 226 3
Debris Burning 106 87 31 96 748 29 81 50 31 103 916 35 146 26,578 37 106 5,676 33
Arson 25 6 7 16 5 5 6 7 2 3 1 1 3 4 1 11 5 3
Equipment 4 1 1 12 3 4 10 440 4 43 84,842 14 27 14 7 19 17,060 6
Railroads 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Children 31 9 9 31 108 9 19 3 7 23 10 8 24 105 6 26 47 8
Miscellaneous 94 637 28 97 180 29 82 40 32 46 227 15 78 189,715 20 79 38,160 24
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 249 27 74 243 27 73 186 21 72 205 23 69 241 28 60 225 25 69
Class B 71 103 21 70 92 21 61 78 24 78 133 26 114 200 29 79 121 24
Class C 11 362 3 8 226 2 6 96 2 7 154 2 18 722 5 10 312 3
Class D 2 415 1 3 455 1 0 0 0 4 590 1 2 378 1 2 368 1
Class E 1 500 0 3 1,978 1 2 1,039 1 2 1,497 1 2 1,245 1 2 1,252 1
Class F 1 3,381 0 0 0 3 5,056 1 0 0 0 6 19,371 2 2 5,562 1
Class G 3 58,920 1 6 143,028 2 1 28,907 0 1 84,730 0 16 780,571 4 5 219,231 2
171

Arizona
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
396 3,057 438 8,722 481 7,921 406 4,699 530 46,645 450 14,209
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 46 174 12 45 5,123 10 87 2,730 18 99 968 24 80 7,301 15 71 3,259 16
Camper 8 12 2 6 10 1 6 4 1 8 5 2 20 2,915 4 10 589 2
Smoker 40 37 10 33 24 8 18 12 4 24 23 6 55 103 10 34 40 8
Debris Burning 35 62 9 34 620 8 46 857 10 44 590 11 56 11,033 11 43 2,632 10
Arson 9 291 2 6 45 1 7 31 1 5 864 1 9 9,561 2 7 2,158 2
Equipment 30 52 8 29 30 7 52 52 11 46 517 11 58 10,665 11 43 2,263 10
Railroads 9 847 2 9 27 2 4 2 1 3 2 1 10 8 2 7 177 2
Children 3 5 1 7 6 2 2 5 0 7 27 2 5 11 1 5 11 1
Miscellaneous 216 1,577 55 269 2,837 61 259 4,228 54 170 1,703 42 237 5,048 45 230 3,079 51
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 208 29 47 230 84 53 248 34 ### 225 32 55 290 40 55 240 44 53
Class B 151 262 34 167 366 38 174 348 ### 144 283 35 193 702 36 166 392 37
Class C 28 846 6 32 887 7 45 1,319 ### 26 687 6 26 2,059 5 31 1,160 7
Class D 7 860 2 3 349 1 5 860 ### 6 993 1 8 1,485 2 6 909 1
Class E 2 1,060 0 4 2,214 1 8 4,080 ### 5 2,704 1 5 2,972 1 5 2,606 1
Class F 2 4,822 0 1 1,280 ### 5% 8,726 0 1 2,966 0
Class G 3 30,661 1
172

California
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
5,227 92,456 7,296 277,750 5,149 66,684 6,223 90,985 5,759 112,810 5,931 128,137
137% 137% 137%
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 237 17,396 5 448 70,154 6 154 219 3 341 1,496 5 114 196 2 259 17,892 4
Camper 225 275 4 319 1,470 4 204 1,498 4 288 6,077 5 157 74 3 239 1,879 4
Smoker 126 1,144 2 142 373 2 137 269 3 164 2,453 3 144 1,041 3 143 1,056 2
Debris Burning 508 921 10 711 3,139 10 623 9,486 12 562 1,469 9 633 8,735 11 607 4,750 10
Arson 372 31,872 7 492 43,280 7 295 4,983 6 403 16,573 6 402 3,831 7 393 20,108 7
Equipment 2,230 32,970 43 2,636 105,267 36 2,181 44,953 42 2,413 28,599 39 1,518 85,001 26 2,196 59,358 37
Railroads 17 69 0 28 283 0 34 69 1 27 375 0 14 44 0 24 168 0
Children 102 121 2 143 366 2 98 130 2 131 271 2 104 43 2 116 186 2
Miscellaneous 1,410 7,688 27 2,377 53,418 33 1,423 5,077 28 1,894 33,672 30 2,673 13,845 46 1,955 22,740 33
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 3,845 104 74 5,285 156 72 3,657 109 71 4,437 123 71 4,130 1,368 72 4,271 372 72
Class B 1,134 2,008 22 1,671 2,925 23 1,290 2,174 25 1,494 2,512 24 1,338 2,224 23 1,385 2,369 23
Class C 184 5,443 4 230 6,127 3 146 4,039 3 229 6,960 4 215 7,445 4 201 6,003 3
Class D 31 5,412 1 43 6,435 1 32 5,522 1 25 4,189 0 49 8,066 1 36 5,925 1
Class E 18 9,737 0 34 18,367 0 14 6,939 0 23 11,959 0 15 8,540 0 21 11,108 0
Class F 11 23,988 0 24 43,108 0 6 13,902 0 10 20,767 0 10 17,714 0 12 23,896 0
Class G 4 45,764 0 9 200,632 0 4 33,999 0 5 44,475 0 2 67,453 0 5 78,465 0
173

Colorado
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
1,349 10,282 1,987 33,255 2,043 76,288 2,966 45,816 3,409 244,252 2,351 81,979
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 142 506 11 106 2,193 5 399 27,689 20 521 38,506 18 408 151,922 12 315 44,163 13
Camper 7 9 1 10 8 1 44 16 2 51 30 2 37 23 1 30 17 1
Smoker 68 264 5 63 7,937 3 70 722 3 76 205 3 109 2,459 3 77 2,317 3
Debris Burning 300 6,542 22 402 14,657 20 321 5,167 16 384 1,257 13 583 7,348 17 398 6,994 17
Arson 81 129 6 108 2,281 5 120 3,564 6 234 345 8 265 3,055 8 162 1,875 7
Equipment 60 139 4 47 465 2 42 166 2 88 2,014 3 61 309 2 60 619 3
Railroads 4 60 0 2 3 0 2 300 0 17 10 1 30 272 1 11 129 0
Children 85 471 6 29 58 1 44 17 2 104 153 4 75 107 2 67 161 3
Miscellaneous 602 2,162 30 1,220 5,653 36 1,001 38,647 49 1,491 3,296 50 1,841 78,757 54 1,231 25,703 52
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 810 83 60 1,417 122 71 1,293 116 63 2,055 190 69 2,182 136 64 1,551 129 66
Class B 463 831 34 426 744 21 551 909 27 789 1,173 27 951 1,705 28 636 1,072 27
Class C 62 1,698 5 91 2,238 5 109 3,402 5 97 2,655 3 199 5,747 6 112 3,148 5
Class D 7 1,080 1 29 4,489 1 40 5,550 2 13 1,669 0 27 4,083 1 23 3,374 1
Class E 4 2,090 0 17 7,762 1 36 17,951 2 7 3,129 0 19 9,404 1 17 8,067 1
Class F 3 4,500 0 5 6,900 0 10 18,260 0 4 7,000 0 17 39,969 0 8 15,326 0
Class G 2 11,000 ### 4 30,100 0 1 30,000 0 14 183,208 0 4 50,862 0
174

Guam
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
1,943 13,315 516 485 996 3,409 1,244 2,865 491 2,434 1,038 4,502
No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
% No.
Fires
No. Acres
Burned
Lightning
Camper 1 1 0 0 0 0
Smoker 27 65 5 5 13 1
Debris Burning 733 3,632 38 483 414 94 201 291 20 276 441 22 95 44 19 485 1,682 47
Arson 1,082 9,394 56 745 3,053 75 891 2,282 72 343 2,327 70 760 4,825 73
Equipment
Railroads 6 6 1 1 1 0
Children 128 289 7 50 65 5 76 141 6 53 63 11 76 157 7
Miscellaneous
%
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 415 74 21 218 15 42 259 34 26 429 104 34 110 14 22 347 60 26
Class B 1,292 3,271 66 293 403 57 668 1,008 67 752 1,640 60 331 750 67 859 1,919 65
Class C 217 5,038 11 5 67 1 62 1,489 6 56 1,121 5 45 1,048 9 111 2,551 8
Class D 16 2,312 1 7 878 1 7 1 5 622 1 9 1,100 1
Class E 2 650 0 1 260 0
Class F 1 1,970 0 0 788 0
Class G
175

Hawaii
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
205 37,315 132 20,376 125 2,931 108 1,080 188 2,377 152 12,816
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 1 20 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 0
Camper 9 1 4 3 2 2 3 1 2 8 6 7 9 1 5 6 2 4
Smoker 16 2,259 8 5 84 4 13 9 10 13 16 12 12 28 6 12 479 8
Debris Burning 28 82 14 14 291 11 22 242 18 7 18 6 23 9 12 19 128 12
Arson 49 3,290 24 25 14,174 19 18 74 14 13 118 12 16 139 9 24 3,559 16
Equipment 16 848 8 8 572 6 11 2,197 9 5 61 5 7 1 4 9 736 6
Railroads
Children 11 2,474 5 4 7 3 13 13 10 3 12 3 5 2 3 7 502 5
Miscellaneous 76 28,361 37 72 5,226 55 44 393 35 59 849 55 115 2,197 61 73 7,405 48
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 68 10 33 50 10 38 48 7 38 40 11 37 147 15 78 71 11 47
Class B 77 149 38 61 223 46 60 146 48 44 133 41 27 57 14 54 142 35
Class C 36 2,255 18 16 408 12 12 270 10 23 545 21 12 350 6 20 766 13
Class D 9 1,896 4 1 235 1 2 350 2 1 255 1 3 547 2
Class E 9 4,895 4 1 500 1 2 1,150 2 1 391 1 3 1,387 2
Class F 5 15,657 2 1 4,000 1 1 1,008 1 1 1,700 1 2 4,473 1
Class G 1 12,453 0 2 15,000 2 1 5,491 0
176

Idaho
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
362 29,041 431 78,641 801 142,195 547 52,728 386 7,972 505 62,115
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 217 23,473 60 215 49,727 50 367 108,333 46 251 11,529 46 189 4,969 49 248 39,606 49
Camper 19 29 5 33 19 8 66 50 8 47 30 9 30 104 8 39 46 8
Smoker 7 8 2 15 8 3 29 25 4 4 1 1 5 3 1 12 9 2
Debris Burning 54 168 15 77 981 18 128 723 16 53 227 10 55 536 14 73 527 15
Arson 5 157 1 14 10 3 18 1,604 2 23 1,527 4 12 187 3 14 697 3
Equipment 17 4,112 5 17 190 4 64 8,679 8 35 3,116 6 38 1,271 10 34 3,474 7
Railroads 6 4 2 6 15 1 12 29 1 6 14 1 1 1 0 6 13 1
Children 8 1 2 9 4 2 19 122 2 13 225 2 8 560 2 11 182 2
Miscellaneous 29 1,089 8 45 27,687 10 98 22,630 12 115 36,059 21 48 341 12 67 17,561 13
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 256 28 71 287 36 67 505 66 63 343 43 63 242 25 63 327 40 65
Class B 82 137 23 111 211 26 221 467 28 144 325 26 110 214 28 134 271 26
Class C 17 570 5 17 541 4 45 1,492 6 27 896 5 24 823 6 26 864 5
Class D 3 694 1 4 642 1 12 2,230 1 15 2,472 3 3 408 1 7 1,289 1
Class E 2 1,715 1 3 1,685 1 6 3,771 1 10 5,314 2 5 2,298 1 5 2,957 1
Class F 1 2,958 0 6 15,523 1 7 14,541 1 5 8,101 1 2 4,204 1 4 9,065 1
Class G 1 22,939 0 3 60,003 1 5 119,628 1 3 35,577 1 2 47,629 0
177

Kansas
1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
3,238 31,676 4,732 35,699 6,439 83,244 3,101 35,092 6,024 93,017 4,707 55,746
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 239 994 7 152 815 3 382 8,914 6 179 1,514 6 299 3,421 5 250 3,132 5
Camper 5 205 0 1 41 0
Smoker 264 929 8 327 2,342 7 461 2,873 7 244 991 8 650 4,046 11 389 2,236 8
Debris Burning 1,467 15,158 45 1,664 18,199 35 1,869 26,749 29 813 7,999 26 1,473 21,173 24 1,457 17,856 31
Arson 163 1,179 5 412 2,488 9 524 4,415 8 263 2,546 8 617 5,782 10 396 3,282 8
Equipment 64 891 2 98 2,525 2 102 1,569 2 374 6,026 12 405 4,937 7 209 3,190 4
Railroads 119 1,967 4 201 1,508 4 274 8,449 4 58 156 1 130 2,416 3
Children 62 96 2 64 11 1 106 561 2 28 62 1 48 495 1 62 245 1
Miscellaneous 860 10,462 27 1,814 7,811 38 2,721 29,714 42 1,200 15,954 39 2,469 52,802 41 1,813 23,349 39
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 861 447 27 1,434 263 30 1,342 492 21 1,325 377 43 2,443 353 41 1,481 386 31
Class B 1,522 2,141 47 1,556 2,164 33 2,996 3,427 47 1,195 2,833 39 1,550 4,427 26 1,764 2,998 37
Class C 726 10,515 22 1,481 12,984 31 1,878 23,749 29 497 13,642 16 867 23,917 14 1,090 16,961 23
Class D 94 7,038 3 189 6,608 4 158 16,844 2 68 10,320 2 108 15,680 2 123 11,298 3
Class E 30 8,055 1 70 8,180 1 56 20,042 1 15 6,420 0 40 18,240 1 42 12,187 1
Class F 5 3,480 0 2 5,500 0 9 18,690 0 1 1,500 0 9 18,400 0 5 9,514 0
Class G 1 12,000 0 0 2,400 0
178

Montana
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
527 37,866 467 87,356 543 168,744 334 36,986 471 28,811 468 71,953
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 268 26,545 51 249 43,660 53 310 37,230 57 118 34,297 35 186 19,172 39 226 32,181 48
Camper 60 1,467 11 55 156 12 40 7 7 45 12 13 68 94 14 54 347 11
Smoker 12 4 2 8 175 2 4 3,062 1 8 1 2 12 2 3 9 649 2
Debris Burning 79 692 15 46 2,212 10 50 640 9 64 1,797 19 91 1,115 19 66 1,291 14
Arson 8 6 2 3 202 1 8 42 1 6 56 2 11 36 2 7 68 2
Equipment 23 580 4 21 7,751 4 16 81,618 3 9 422 3 8 4 2 15 18,075 3
Railroads 23 205 4 16 10,958 3 17 9 3 9 32 3 7 2 1 14 2,241 3
Children 4 1 1 14 308 3 13 90 2 8 1 2 9 1 2 10 80 2
Miscellaneous 50 8,366 9 55 21,934 12 85 46,046 16 67 368 20 79 8,385 17 67 17,020 14
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 350 26 66 306 25 66 342 22 63 231 23 69 343 26 73 314 24 67
Class B 140 242 27 110 251 24 128 281 24 80 170 24 97 169 21 111 223 24
Class C 13 378 2 21 646 4 38 1,483 7 12 358 4 20 571 4 21 687 4
Class D 12 1,881 2 9 1,544 2 8 1,366 1 3 455 1 2 214 0 7 1,092 1
Class E 6 3,700 1 7 4,125 1 11 6,038 2 5 3,002 1 3 1,159 1 6 3,605 1
Class F 3 3,545 1 9 24,137 2 10 21,550 2 2 6,478 1 3 8,277 1 5 12,797 1
Class G 3 28,094 1 5 56,628 1 6 138,004 1 1 26,500 0 3 18,395 1 4 53,524 1
179

Nebraska
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
793 34,362 1,350 177,024 1,982 252,249 620 17,230 1,835 90,562 1,316 114,549
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 106 11,413 13 78 4,060 6 265 173,466 13 91 13,080 15 249 34,789 14 158 47,362 12
Camper 2 1 0 8 18 1 8 10 0 2 2 0 11 95 1 6 25 0
Smoker 48 246 6 76 9,138 6 101 1,180 5 25 94 4 80 858 4 66 2,303 5
Debris Burning 164 7,241 21 356 5,114 26 553 35,245 28 135 1,001 22 500 5,614 27 342 10,843 26
Arson 18 64 2 39 551 3 81 8,428 4 10 114 2 64 1,058 3 42 2,043 3
Equipment 115 5,659 15 229 14,704 17 282 8,507 14 97 683 16 255 31,966 14 196 12,304 15
Railroads 88 1,047 11 108 36,234 8 135 7,683 7 49 395 8 103 641 6 97 9,200 7
Children 6 5 1 13 6 1 9 7 0 4 2 1 20 11 1 10 6 1
Miscellaneous 246 8,686 31 443 107,199 33 548 17,723 28 207 1,859 33 553 15,530 30 399 30,199 30
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 254 32 32 394 49 29 557 67 28 165 18 27 467 58 25 367 45 28
Class B 357 779 45 665 1,391 49 962 2,061 49 339 597 55 937 1,907 51 652 1,347 50
Class C 133 4,232 17 215 5,737 16 340 10,467 17 102 3,145 16 350 10,503 19 228 6,817 17
Class D 28 4,220 4 37 5,785 3 61 9,308 3 8 1,310 1 48 7,752 3 36 5,675 3
Class E 14 8,699 2 20 10,522 1 33 17,047 2 4 2,160 1 20 8,920 1 18 9,470 1
Class F 7 16,400 1 11 17,620 1 18 43,299 1 1 3,000 0 10 22,422 1 9 20,548 1
Class G 8 135,920 1 11 170,000 1 1 7,000 0 3 39,000 0 5 70,384 0
180

Nevada
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
141 1,989 233 2,162 319 87,315 182 22,069 269 2,833 229 23,274
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 25 110 18 36 166 15 67 68,630 21 30 21,294 16 37 2,487 14 39 18,537 17
Camper 10 5 7 18 2 8 31 13 10 30 13 16 5 12 2 19 9 8
Smoker 4 1 2 1 2 1 3 4 1 2 1 1
Debris Burning 52 6 37 105 71 45 86 75 27 41 16 23 57 156 21 68 65 30
Arson 16 113 5 3 3 2 4 23 2
Equipment 4 2 3 11 105 5 30 15,971 9 17 351 9 8 26 3 14 3,291 6
Railroads 13 5 9 19 15 8 2 2 1 12 82 7 4 9 1 10 23 4
Children 5 34 4 8 2 3 8 51 3 7 17 4 2 17 1 6 24 3
Miscellaneous 32 1,827 23 32 1,800 14 79 2,460 25 41 291 23 153 122 57 67 1,300 29
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 116 13 82 184 22 79 209 23 66 109 12 60 117 10 43 147 16 64
Class B 16 37 11 36 66 15 72 157 23 48 70 26 113 45 42 57 75 25
Class C 8 157 6 11 292 5 21 504 7 16 350 9 24 93 9 16 279 7
Class D 1 0 6 1,277 2 3 462 2 12 398 4 4 427 2
Class E 2 1,250 1 1 69 1 2 333 1 1 330 0
Class F 1 1,782 1 1 1,782 0 5 5,601 2 3 4,391 2 1 1,954 0 2 3,102 1
Class G 4 78,503 1 2 16,715 1 1 19,044 1
181

New Mexico
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
1,117 123,748 469 52,446 1,134 376,475 476 39,849 794 226,492 798 163,802
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 341 51,366 31 88 12,576 19 442 76,320 39 222 26,761 47 324 179,921 41 283 69,389 36
Camper 7 37 1 10 10 2 12 1,030 1 7 6 1 16 5,622 2 10 1,341 1
Smoker 36 1,133 3 40 2,112 9 55 14,066 5 14 275 3 29 396 4 35 3,596 4
Debris Burning 173 11,766 15 90 12,047 19 165 12,940 15 47 381 10 141 1,611 18 123 7,749 15
Arson 47 1,484 4 8 142 2 30 9,424 3 12 49 3 24 942 3 24 2,408 3
Equipment 85 10,283 8 51 5,069 11 63 15,955 6 29 179 6 49 2,025 6 55 6,702 7
Railroads 8 90 1 14 3,980 3 36 56,361 3 9 27 2 17 41 2 17 12,100 2
Children 27 58 2 8 419 2 15 339 1 5 2 1 7 850 1 12 334 2
Miscellaneous 393 47,531 35 160 16,091 34 316 190,040 28 131 12,169 28 187 35,084 24 237 60,183 30
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 253 39 23 146 26 31 315 1,456 28 189 30 40 348 92 44 250 329 31
Class B 478 1,188 43 193 501 41 449 1,083 40 184 374 39 315 736 40 324 776 41
Class C 248 7,997 22 77 1,927 16 212 6,397 19 78 2,256 16 76 3,711 10 138 4,458 17
Class D 58 9,376 5 21 3,115 4 65 10,485 6 9 1,522 2 18 4,415 2 34 5,783 4
Class E 49 23,340 4 18 9,510 4 51 25,273 4 7 3,116 1 17 8,191 2 28 13,886 4
Class F 29 60,808 3 11 23,867 2 27 57,656 2 7 14,301 1 11 81,842 1 17 47,695 2
Class G 2 21,000 0 3 13,500 1 15 274,125 1 2 18,250 0 9 177,505 1 6 100,876 1
182

North Dakota
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
397 7,201 561 83,640 612 64,113 219 6,504 325 29,565 423 38,205
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 52 428 13 22 544 4 73 19,174 12 7 55 3 77 11,779 24 46 6,396 11
Camper 3 91 1 9 20 2 10 167 2 4 56 1
Smoker 8 24 2 17 363 3 14 89 2 4 86 2 4 38 1 9 120 2
Debris Burning 156 2,920 39 290 66,839 52 246 13,481 40 129 3,510 59 63 3,284 19 177 18,007 42
Arson 14 4 4 21 321 4 8 222 1 1 25 0 9 114 2
Equipment 29 2,354 7 90 13,780 16 100 8,339 16 18 1,341 8 50 2,724 15 57 5,708 14
Railroads 29 762 7 25 186 4 21 354 3 4 23 2 10 108 3 18 287 4
Children 16 18 4 11 28 2 10 24 2 3 23 1 3 99 1 9 38 2
Miscellaneous 90 600 23 76 1,559 14 130 22,263 21 54 1,466 25 117 11,508 36 93 7,479 22
17
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 184 46 46 158 38 28 126 30 21 58 7 26 99 20 30 125 28 30
Class B 128 270 32 252 602 45 246 614 40 87 215 40 104 263 32 163 393 39
Class C 76 2,415 19 118 3,205 21 177 5,269 29 59 1,690 27 80 2,179 25 102 2,952 24
Class D 5 620 1 22 2,975 4 30 4,940 5 10 1,300 5 23 3,253 7 18 2,618 4
Class E 2 1,150 1 7 3,320 1 21 10,340 3 4 2,292 2 13 5,800 4 9 4,580 2
Class F 2 2,700 1 2 4,500 0 9 22,420 1 1 1,000 0 4 7,300 1 4 7,584 1
Class G 2 69,000 0 3 20,500 0 2 10,750 1 1 20,050 0
183

Oregon
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
938 2,680 1,145 9,605 894 13,247 1,241 51,268 1,175 99,047 1,079 35,169
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 305 359 33 338 1,892 30 157 3,319 18 485 46,976 39 308 92,395 26 355 29,016 33
Camper 80 395 9 138 1,609 12 91 69 10 107 149 9 125 596 11 137 570 13
Smoker 57 33 6 82 199 7 71 16 8 65 58 5 82 60 7 144 3,236 13
Debris Burning 181 582 19 209 3,086 18 182 7,906 20 179 1,061 14 217 2,048 18 214 2,955 20
Arson 35 34 4 25 543 2 52 46 6 47 167 4 34 86 3 109 309 10
Equipment 127 388 14 184 1,818 16 177 334 20 170 2,529 14 219 2,487 19 179 1,708 17
Railroads 14 128 1 8 88 1 10 492 1 15 15 1 9 1 1 33 161 3
Children 32 8 3 59 242 5 55 41 6 65 118 5 40 86 3 90 109 8
Miscellaneous 107 753 11 102 128 9 99 24 11 108 195 9 141 1,288 12 469 5,376 43
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 632 32 67 787 58 69 667 48 75 927 77 75 814 65 69 846 214 78
Class B 268 379 29 305 532 27 202 394 23 253 632 20 272 521 23 265 645 25
Class C 28 929 3 37 1,173 3 13 384 1 45 1,535 4 53 1,757 5 37 1,353 3
Class D 8 1,212 1 7 1,300 1 5 494 1 10 1,502 1 13 1,644 1 10 1,650 1
Class E 1 48 0 6 2,746 1 4 1,050 0 2 753 0 5 2,692 0 4 1,976 0
Class F 1 80 0 3 3,796 0 1 1,296 0 1 1,323 0 6 7,178 1 3 6,567 0
Class G 2 9,581 0 3 45,446 0 12 85,190 1 361 33,342 33
184

South Dakota
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
164 4,604 742 71,989 1,173 404,130 564 55,976 725 166,928 674 140,725
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 46 638 28 66 4,852 9 336 192,012 29 156 18,141 28 215 82,113 30 164 59,551 24
Camper 16 20 10 2 0 130 4,390 11 41 457 7 4 1 1 39 974 6
Smoker 3 1 2 18 94 2 20 1,645 2 11 143 2 11 9 2 13 378 2
Debris Burning 24 172 15 270 10,283 36 233 32,210 20 74 1,816 13 190 4,691 26 158 9,834 23
Arson 6 19 1 1 83,500 0 1 0 2 16,704 0
Equipment 22 3,542 13 157 13,185 21 152 44,677 13 115 15,908 20 106 34,749 15 110 22,412 16
Railroads 1 10 1 11 442 1 22 1,910 2 3 2,601 1 3 120 0 8 1,017 1
Children 14 46 9 41 251 6 37 85 3 28 105 5 28 4,398 4 30 977 4
Miscellaneous 38 175 23 171 42,863 23 242 43,701 21 136 16,805 24 167 40,847 23 151 28,878 22
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 75 11 46 194 26 26 182 20 16 141 38 25 151 24 21 149 24 22
Class B 52 101 32 332 721 45 569 1,281 49 272 601 48 333 7,781 46 312 2,097 46
Class C 33 682 20 165 5,047 22 278 8,672 24 105 3,237 19 172 5,083 24 151 4,544 22
Class D 2 260 1 26 4,034 4 58 9,595 5 20 3,180 4 30 4,637 4 27 4,341 4
Class E 1 450 1 10 4,744 1 41 19,035 3 15 6,970 3 14 10,132 2 16 8,266 2
Class F 1 3,100 1 11 20,917 1 25 47,472 2 9 17,450 2 20 45,600 3 13 26,908 2
Class G 4 36,500 1 20 318,055 2 2 24,500 0 5 93,671 1 6 94,545 1
185

Utah
`
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
495 24,603 735 133,353 855 52,257 834 61,756 613 68,534 706 68,101
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 244 15,069 49 289 24,436 39 569 41,848 67 540 53,386 65 325 53,158 53 393 37,579 56
Camper 21 2 4 36 2,930 5 34 67 4 28 12 3 38 3,596 6 31 1,321 4
Smoker 12 69 2 19 167 3 14 7 2 9 2 1 10 45 2 13 58 2
Debris Burning 47 758 9 103 5,324 14 42 479 5 54 98 6 54 505 9 60 1,433 8
Arson 29 64 6 61 16,213 8 50 3,953 6 40 4,065 5 34 638 6 43 4,987 6
Equipment 37 1,915 7 62 3,792 8 53 454 6 43 1,940 5 44 5,999 7 48 2,820 7
Railroads 12 568 2 31 61,138 4 20 2,038 2 11 88 1 11 1,263 2 17 13,019 2
Children 11 11 2 8 215 1 9 9 1 10 7 1 4 16 1 8 52 1
Miscellaneous 82 6,147 11 126 19,138 21 64 3,402 ### 99 2,158 ### 93 3,314 ### 93 6,832 13
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 251 22 51 305 44 41 498 136 58 515 45 62 385 29 ### 391 55 55
Class B 153 192 31 288 740 39 256 2,312 30 223 380 27 160 262 ### 216 777 31
Class C 54 1,207 11 81 3,266 11 52 1,403 6 53 1,181 6 30 825 ### 54 1,576 8
Class D 12 1,765 2 17 3,266 2 16 1,498 2 18 1,375 2 7 765 ### 14 1,734 2
Class E 11 1,574 2 25 14,771 3 10 2,588 1 9 2,651 1 8 2,879 ### 13 4,893 2
Class F 9 6,117 2 16 36,729 2 18 25,383 2 13 17,246 2 13 7,914 ### 14 18,678 2
Class G 5 13,726 1 3 74,537 0 5 18,937 1 3 38,878 0 10 55,890 ### 5 40,394 1
186

Washington
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
992 23,511 1,002 6,796 780 18,027 809 17,700 889 10,063 894 15,219
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 194 19,189 20 120 529 12 81 13,946 10 140 9,542 17 134 462 15 134 8,734 15
Camper 107 24 11 188 431 19 123 947 16 132 193 16 130 204 15 136 360 15
Smoker 41 35 4 40 17 4 28 20 4 27 9 3 31 19 3 33 20 4
Debris Burning 214 545 22 272 1,175 28 190 611 24 173 888 21 197 3,059 22 209 1,256 23
Arson 48 951 5 35 967 4 40 1,069 5 24 27 3 34 105 4 36 624 4
Equipment 62 295 6 32 166 3 13 47 2 5 17 1 27 19 3 28 109 3
Railroads 14 124 1 13 30 1 9 44 1 20 34 2 13 18 1 14 50 2
Children 45 87 5 47 124 5 28 95 4 26 13 3 43 30 5 38 70 4
Miscellaneous 267 2,261 27 225 3,357 23 268 1,248 34 262 6,977 32 280 6,147 31 260 3,998 29
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 695 73 70 643 67 64 472 56 61 513 54 63 550 800 62 575 210 64
Class B 255 458 26 308 594 31 263 493 34 249 492 31 287 526 32 272 513 30
Class C 31 1,000 3 41 1,164 4 35 1,245 4 34 976 4 39 1,013 4 36 1,080 4
Class D 6 802 1 7 1,192 1 5 930 1 6 1,056 1 8 411 1 6 878 1
Class E 3 1,582 0 2 1,169 0 3 2,137 0 4 2,005 0 2 942 0 3 1,567 0
Class F 1 1,162 0 1 2,610 0 2 7,142 0 3 6,371 0 1 3,457 0
Class G 1 18,434 0 2 13,166 0 1 5,785 0 1 7,477 0
187

Wyoming
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
5-year Average
No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
558 22,942 732 84,300 909 358,698 219 18,414 815 163,226 647 129,516
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Lightning 185 20,717 25 112 4,317 15 348 296,528 38 72 11,815 33 244 69,227 30 192 80,521 30
Camper 7 218 1 8 5 1 12 91 5 42 321 5 14 127 2
Smoker 10 3 1 26 86 4 15 86 2 4 4 2 50 204 6 21 77 3
Debris Burning 80 160 11 125 1,820 17 130 2,915 14 21 938 10 84 453 10 88 1,257 14
Arson 29 46 4 33 52 5 70 91 8 10 78 5 101 90,163 12 49 18,086 8
Equipment 10 30 1 40 17,078 5 27 660 3 32 58 15 132 1,086 16 48 3,782 7
Railroads 70 163 10 156 18,415 21 96 445 11 19 121 9 45 130 6 77 3,855 12
Children 11 13 2 16 10 2 11 25 1 11 50 5 10 20 2
Miscellaneous 163 1,810 22 217 42,304 30 204 57,943 22 38 5,259 17 117 1,642 14 148 21,792 23
No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
% No. No. Acres
Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned
%
Class A 342 93 47 320 87 44 340 1,413 37 68 7 31 282 31 35 270 326 42
Class B 153 353 21 295 656 40 361 959 40 119 205 54 421 730 52 270 581 42
Class C 46 1,317 6 84 3,356 11 119 3,343 13 19 659 9 73 2,307 9 68 2,196 11
Class D 8 1,391 1 17 2,976 2 34 5,923 4 3 316 1 13 1,738 2 15 2,469 2
Class E 7 17,738 1 8 4,024 1 32 14,352 4 4 200 2 10 4,889 1 12 8,241 2
Class F 1 1,300 0 3 5,001 0 11 71,978 1 5 10,020 2 5 9,234 1 5 19,507 1
Class G 1 750 0 5 68,200 1 12 260,730 1 1 5,207 0 11 144,297 1 6 95,837 1
188

Appendix
189

Wildland/Urban Interface
The Wildland/Urban Interface fire problem has existed for hundreds of years. As early as
1793, the Governor of Upper and Lower California “prohibited all kinds of burning, not only in the
vicinity of the towns....which cause some detriment....” In the last 50 years the problem has grown
more complex as more development has occurred. This section of Fire in the West focuses on the
common elements of the Wildland/Urban Interface problem, and seeks to better define the
condition(s) in the West.
Definitions:
Life and Property Fire Protection – a service with the primary responsibility to protect
structures AND the people who occupy these structures from injury or death. This fire
protection service is normally provided by rural and/or local government fire departments,
with specially trained and equipped personnel. After life safety, the priority is to
keep the fire from leaving the area of origin. It also means protecting the structure from
an advancing wildland fire. Local taxpayers fund this service through a variety of taxing
authorities. (The equipment and training required to conduct life and property protection
are not normally provided to the wildland firefighter.)
Structure Protection – to protect structures from the threat of damage from an advancing
wildland fire. This normally does not include an attack on fire that is inside the structure.
It involves the use of fire control lines (constructed or natural) and the extinguishment of
spot fires near or on the structure. This protection can be provided by both the rural and/
or local government fire department firefighter and the wildland fire protection firefighter.
Structural Fire Protection – is defined as interior and exterior actions take to suppress and
extinguish a burning structure or improvement associated with standard structure fire
protection, equipment and training. Structural fire suppression is the responsibility of
local government entities, although there are some locations in the West where there is
currently no structural fire agency in place.
190

Wildland Fire Protection – a service with the primary responsibility of protecting natural
resources and watersheds from damage by wildfires. State and federal forestry or land
management agencies normally provide wildland fire protection with specially trained
and equipped personnel. Various taxing authorities and fees fund this service. Some
wildland fire protection agencies have the responsibilities for intermingled life and property
protection when they are threatened by a wildland fire...and some do not. It is nearly
impossible for an incident commander to separate these responsibilities (and the associated
costs) during a wildland fire. (The equipment and training required to conduct
wildland fire protection are not normally provided to the local government fire department
firefighter. If a fire protection agency is routinely called upon to fight wildland fires,
they are usually trained and equipped to do so. The problem arises when personnel from
an agency are called upon to fight fires for which they are NOT properly equipped or
trained.)
Wildland/Urban Interface – in relation to wildland/urban fire, a set of conditions that
provides the opportunity for fire to burn from wildland vegetation to the home/structure
ignition zone. There are four different wildland/urban conditions:
Interface Condition – is a situation where structures abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line of
demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads or back fences
(Figure 4). Wildland fuels do not continue into the developed area. The development
density for an interface condition is usually 3+ structures per acre. Fire protection
is normally provided by a local government fire department with the responsibility
to protect the structure from both an interior fire and an advancing wildland fire
(unless the line of demarcation is also a jurisdictional boundary).
Intermix Condition – is a condition where structures are scattered throughout a wildland
area (Figure 5). There is no clear line of demarcation; the wildland fuels are continuous
outside of and within the developed area. The development density in the intermix
ranges from structures very close together to one structure per 40 acres. Fire
protection districts funded by various taxing authorities normally provide life and
property fire protection, and may also have wildland fire protection responsibilities.
Occluded Condition – is a situation, normally within a city, where structures abut an
island of wildland fuels (park or open space). There is a clear line of demarcation
Figure 4. Interface Condition, where there is a clear line
between the structures and the wildland fuels.
191

etween the structures and the
wildland fuels along roads or back
fences. The development density
for an occluded condition is
usually similar to those found in
the interface condition and the
occluded area is usually less than
1,000 acres in size. Fire protection
is normally provided by a local
government fire department. The
trend is for local government to
require developers to include open
space in their plans, but not
include a long-term mechanism
for their maintenance; thus the
hazardous fire condition increases
over time.
Figure 6. Intermix Condition, where there the structures are
scattered throughout the wildland fuels.
Rural Condition – is a situation where scattered small clusters of structures (ranches,
farms, resorts, or summer cabins) are exposed to wildland fuels (Figure 6). There may be
miles between these clusters. Structural fire protection service may not be available.
These types of developments often exceed the capabilities of both the structural and
wildland fire protection systems. Wildland fire protection agencies have little or no
control over such development and may be unable to provide protection due to statutory
barriers.
Areas of Safe Refuge – an area of safe refuge is like a safety zone, a place where a
person is safe from a fire. Communities can be designed in such a way to provide a
place of refuge during a wildland fire.
Defensible Space - the area immediately around a structure where fuel needs to be
reduced to allow firefighters to work safely.
Figure 6. Rural Condition, where the structures or clusters of
structures are situated in wildland fuels. These structures or
clusters are often miles apart.
Dwelling Unit – is a house, home, apartment, etc. where humans reside. A motel or
hotel room is not a dwelling unit because the length of say is usually short-term.
192

Fire-resistive Construction - is the use of materials and systems in the design and construction
of a building or structure to safeguard against the spread of fire within a building or
structure and the spread of fire to or from buildings or structures to the wildland/urban
interface area.
Hazard – the degree of flammability of the fuels once a fire starts. This includes the fuel
(type, arrangement, volume, condition, etc.), topography and weather.
Home or House – is usually a privately owned structure in which people live. It does not
house more than one family.
Home/Structure Ignition Zone - the area that principally determines the potential for ignition
of the home/stucture from wildland fire. It includes the home/structure and its immediate
surroundings within 100 to 200 feet.
Ignition-Resistant Construction – incorporates the use of materials and design that enables
a structure to withstand ignition from radiant heat, fire brands or direct flame impingement.
Risk – the chance of a fire starting from any cause.
Structural Fire Protection – is defined as interior and exterior actions taken to suppress and
extinguish a burning structure or improvement utilizing standard building fire protection
methods, equipment and training . Structural fire suppression is generally the responsibility
of a local government entity, although there are some locations in the West where there is
currently no structural fire agency in place.
Structure – is a building, home, business, barn, etc., that is built within one foundation/
framework. An apartment building is a structure with multiple dwelling units.
Structure Protection – to protect structures from the threat of damage from an advancing
wildland fire (Figure 11). This normally does not include an attack on fire that is inside the
structure. It involves the use of fire control lines (constructed or natural) and the extinguishment
of spot fires near or on the structure. This protection can be provided by the
193

ural and/or local government fire department firefighter and the wildland fire protection
firefighter.
Structures saved – a structure is considered saved if it is within the exterior boundaries of the
fire or directly adjacent to the fireline, and did not burn down or suffer serious damage as a
result of the wildfire.
Structures threatened – a structure is considered threatened if it is within the exterior boundaries
of the fire, or within ¼-mile of the exterior boundary of the fire, or within the fire
behavior projection for the next 24-hours.
Suppression – taking specific actions to control and extinguish an unwanted wildland fire.
Wildfire Causes – there are three general causes of wildland fires, natural (lightning), accidental
(debris burning, children with matches, etc.) and intentional (arson).
Wildland/urban interface fire – is (1) a fire burning primarily in wildland fuels that threatens
or destroys several structures; (2) That situation where the fuel feeding the fire changes
from wildland fuel to urban fuel. For this to happen, wildland fire must be close enough for
flying brands and/or flames to make contact with flammable portion of homes/structures.
Wildfire Fire Suppression Strategies – There are two general wildfire management
strategies:
194

Federal Land Ownership
The federal government owns or controls 648,969,668 acres or 58 percent of the land in the
West (Tables 1 and 9). Each of the various federal agencies have different roles, missions, and
responsibilities.
USDA Forest Service - The Forest Service manages the 191 million acre National Forest
System under principles of ecosystem management. The national forests contain 140 million acres of
forestland, with the remaining acres in grasslands. The Forest Service owns 166.6 million acres in
the West. There are 184.6 million acres within the various national forests. This includes 18 million
acres of privately owned land (Table 2).
USDI Bureau of Land Management - The BLM is responsible for the multiple-use management
of natural resources on 270 million acres of public land and for supervising mineral leasing
and operations on an additional 300 million acres of federal mineral estate that underlies other
surface ownership. BLM manages 262.7 million acres in 12 western states and Alaska (Table 3).
Under federal regulations, all Public Domain is “owned” by the BLM. Other federal agencies (Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, etc.) manage millions of acres of Public Domain.
USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs - The BIA manages and protects natural resources on 46.6
million acres in the West. There are three classifications for the lands they protect: Tribal Lands -
40.2 million acres; Individually Owned Lands - 6.1 million acres; and BIA owned lands - 288
thousand acres (Table 4). The BIA provides a wide variety of community and social services,
maintains law enforcement systems, and assists in agricultural, ranching, forestry, and mining activities
on reservations, and funds 187 BIA and tribal-operated schools in 24 states.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service - The FWS conserves, protects, and enhances fish and
wildlife and their habitats. Management duties extend over 91 million acres of public land and
include 494 national wildlife refuges, 32 wetland management districts, 84 fish hatcheries, 23 research
centers, and 88 associated field stations. In the West, the Fish and Wildlife Service manage
84.8 million acres, most of which is in Alaska and most of them are in Public Domain (Table 5). The
FWS is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act and providing comments and
consultations on water development and water quality under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
and section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
195

Table 1 Federal Land Ownership Data
Forest Service
Department of Defense - The Department of Defense manages 25 million acres of public
lands at 600 major installations in the United States, and 2 million acres abroad. In the West, the
Department of Defense protects 10.4 million acres, most of this land is owned by the Department of
the Army (Table 6). The Department is an active steward of these installations, which vary greatly in
size and use and contain a rich diversity of flora and fauna. Army Corps of Engineers, which manages
11.7 million acres of land and inland water areas, provides recreation opportunities at 463
lakes throughout the United States. In the West, the Corps owns 31 thousand acres.
USDI National Park Service - The National Park Service protects natural and cultural
resources while promoting outdoor recreation, historic preservation, and environmental awareness.
The National Park Service owns and protects 69.6 million acres in the West (Table 7).
Other Federal Agencies - There are several other federal agencies (Bureau of Reclamations,
Department of Energy, etc.) that own and manage over 8 million acres in the West (Table 8).
Bur of Land
Management
Bur of Indian
Affairs
196
Fish and
Wildlife
Service
Areas, in acres.
National
Park Service
Dept of
Defense
Other
Federal
TOTAL
Alaska 22,004,745 86,908,060 1,140,410 76,321,037 52,891,681 1,677,718 22,851 240,966,502
Arizona 11,250,693 14,252,778 20,718,207 1,716,858 2,629,633 1,219,717 2,751 51,790,637
California 20,627,691 14,556,074 191,020 323,642 4,615,013 1,753,493 434,695 42,501,628
Colorado 14,501,592 8,296,512 32,835 81,574 574,689 415,473 358,175 24,260,850
Hawaii 1 0 0 288,511 220,410 127,734 1,627 638,283
Idaho 20,442,651 11,847,328 55,700 76,068 86,866 14,402 1,067,840 33,590,855
Kansas 108,175 0 40,234 58,332 698 143,447 97,088 447,974
Montana 16,872,610 8,060,382 1,074,907 1,153,013 1,221,314 2,540 316,204 28,700,970
Nebraska 352,133 6,580 66,469 172,360 5,863 18,703 119,139 741,247
Nevada 5,815,856 47,844,391 1,233,000 2,318,069 165,500 484,965 1,699,739 59,561,520
New Mexico 9,326,599 12,770,569 8,349,148 384,251 371,827 3,180,226 453,865 34,836,485
North Dakota 1,105,779 59,717 866,896 487,654 71,640 2,112 1,273,320 3,867,118
Oregon 15,664,078 16,223,739 796,588 557,479 194,859 31,072 133,625 33,601,440
South Dakota 2,013,628 279,869 5,002,056 198,086 263,629 890 60,455 7,818,613
Utah 8,112,462 22,877,713 2,331,094 419,169 2,015,426 939,973 660,613 37,356,450
Washington 9,174,956 370,110 2,602,254 186,369 1,932,401 433,251 752,979 15,452,320
Wyoming 9,258,281 18,383,926 1,889,532 86,486 2,393,198 9,512 815,841 32,836,776
TOTAL 166,631,930 262,737,748 46,390,350 84,828,958 69,654,647 10,455,228 8,270,807 648,969,668

Percent
Federally
Owned
Lands
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
65.93%
71.25%
42.41%
36.49%
15.55%
63.46%
0.85%
30.77%
1.51%
84.77%
44.80%
8.70%
54.55%
15.99%
70.89%
36.19%
52.67%
197

Table 2 USDA Forest Service Land Ownership Data
National Forest
System (2.1)
Area, in acres.
Other Lands (2.2)
Total Gross Area
(2.3)
Percent Non-
Forest Lands
within Nation
Forests
Alaska 22,004,745 2,350,390 24,355,135 9.65%
Arizona 11,250,693 636,712 11,887,405 5.36%
California 20,627,691 3,774,754 24,402,445 15.47%
Colorado 14,501,592 1,550,266 16,051,858 9.66%
Hawaii 1 1
Idaho 20,442,651 1,229,036 21,671,687 5.67%
Kansas 108,175 8,144 116,319 7.00%
Montana 16,872,610 2,231,103 19,103,713 11.68%
Nebraska 352,133 90,359 442,492 20.42%
Nevada 5,815,856 459,457 6,275,313 7.32%
New Mexico 9,326,599 1,040,110 10,366,709 10.03%
North Dakota 1,105,779 4 1,105,783 0.00%
Oregon 15,664,078 1,845,269 17,509,347 10.54%
South Dakota 2,013,628 350,393 2,364,021 14.82%
Utah 8,112,462 1,098,147 9,210,609 11.92%
Washington 9,174,956 894,472 10,069,428 8.88%
Wyoming 9,258,281 445,267 9,703,548 4.59%
TOTAL 166,631,930 18,003,883 184,635,813 9.75%
Source:
Land Areas of the National Forest System, USDA Forest Service, FS-383, January 1996.
Notes:
2.1 - National Forest Service Lands are those lands owned by the Forest Service. This includes
National Forest Lands, Purchase Units (Weeks Law), National Grasslands, Land Utilization
Project Lands, Research and Experimental Lands, etc.) 2.2 - Private Lands, State Lands, or
lands owned by another federal agency. 2.3 - The total gross lands within the exterior boundary
(the black line on the administrative map) of the National Forest.
198

Table 3 USDI Bureau of Land Management Land Ownership Data
Area, in acres.
Vacant Public
Lands Outside
Grazing Districts
Vacant Public
Lands Within
Grazing Districts
Land Utilization
Project Lands
Other Lands
Managed by BLM
TOTAL
Alaska 86,908,060 86,908,060
Arizona 1,516,765 10,093,234 32,321 2,610,458 14,252,778
California 7,363,543 1,725,343 5,467,188 14,556,074
Colorado 480,331 6,781,734 36,206 998,241 8,296,512
Hawaii 0
Idaho 422,341 10,733,321 72,276 619,390 11,847,328
Kansas 0
Montana 1,148,321 4,940,802 1,801,171 170,088 8,060,382
Nebraska 6,580 6,580
Nevada 3,140,726 44,493,239 3,127 207,299 47,844,391
New Mexico 1,355,577 11,047,165 229,500 138,327 12,770,569
North Dakota 59,536 181 59,717
Oregon 585,675 12,455,100 78,124 3,104,840 16,223,739
South Dakota 272,277 7,592 279,869
Utah 21,155,026 45,083 1,677,604 22,877,713
Washington 366,921 3,189 370,110
Wyoming 3,910,677 11,273,811 10,434 3,189,004 18,383,926
TOTAL 107,537,330 134,698,775 2,308,242 18,193,401 262,737,748
Source: Public Land Statistics 1997, USDI Bureau of Land Management, (BLM/BC/ST-98/001+1165), March 1998.
199

Table 4 USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Ownership Data
Tribal Lands (4.1)
Individually
Owned Lands (4.2)
Area in acres
Bur of Indian
Affairs Lands (4.3)
TOTAL
Percent
Individually
Owned Lands
Alaska 83,880 1,056,530 1,140,410 92.64%
Arizona 20,370,975 256,766 90,466 20,718,207 1.24%
California 148,535 36,519 5,966 191,020 19.12%
Colorado 14,882 17,946 7 32,835 54.66%
Hawaii 254,418 35 91 254,544 0.01%
Idaho 53,351 2,168 181 55,700 3.89%
Kansas 10,841 29,357 36 40,234 72.97%
Montana 822,088 252,060 759 1,074,907 23.45%
Nebraska 23,174 43,288 7 66,469 65.13%
Nevada 1,149,492 78,529 4,979 1,233,000 6.37%
New Mexico 7,500,568 668,840 179,740 8,349,148 8.01%
North Dakota 245,630 619,338 1,928 866,896 71.44%
Oregon 666,106 130,466 16 796,588 16.38%
South Dakota 2,617,895 2,381,516 2,645 5,002,056 47.61%
Utah 2,297,770 33,237 87 2,331,094 1.43%
Washington 2,170,346 431,748 160 2,602,254 16.59%
Wyoming 1,794,589 93,647 1,296 1,889,532 4.96%
TOTAL 40,224,540 6,131,990 288,364 46,644,894 13.15%
Source:
Acreage Recapitulations by State, USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, December 1996.
Notes:
4.1 - Lands granted to the various tribes via treaties. 4.2 - Land owned by various private
individuals. 4.3 - Land owned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
200

Table 5 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Land Ownership Data
Reserved from
Public Domain
Acquired by other
Federal Agency
Devise or Gift
Area, in acres.
Purchased
Agreement
Easement or
Lease
TOTAL
Percent of Land in
Public Domain
Alaska 76,310,177 974 9,886 1,321 76,322,358 99.98%
Arizona 1,575,940 16,714 1,200 123,004 1,576 1,718,434 91.71%
California 148,535 36,519 5,966 132,622 104,787 428,429 34.67%
Colorado 14,882 17,946 7 48,739 2,293 83,867 17.74%
Hawaii 254,418 35 91 33,967 961 289,472 87.89%
Idaho 53,351 2,168 181 20,368 13,186 89,254 59.77%
Kansas 29,357 28,975 6 58,338 0.00%
Montana 822,088 252,060 759 78,106 96,922 1,249,935 65.77%
Nebraska 20,660 71,399 2,139 78,162 65,476 237,836 8.69%
Nevada 2,236,672 4,139 77,258 1,019 2,319,088 96.45%
New Mexico 72,981 439 220,216 90,615 767 385,018 18.96%
North Dakota 18,538 150,103 4,175 314,838 916,513 1,404,167 1.32%
Oregon 272,142 73,376 773 211,188 36,267 593,746 45.83%
South Dakota 1,848 31,949 6,088 158,201 816,685 1,014,771 0.18%
Utah 65,781 2,383 4,272 346,733 4,244 423,413 15.54%
Washington 42,652 75,757 791 67,169 11,161 197,530 21.59%
Wyoming 32,961 27,474 4,474 21,577 6,634 93,120 35.40%
TOTAL 81,943,626 787,679 256,245 1,841,408 2,079,818 86,908,776
Source: Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, September 1997.
201

Table 6 US Department of Defense Land Ownership Data
Area, in acres.
Dept of the Army Dept of the Navy
Dept of the Air Corps of
Force Engineers
TOTAL
Alaska 1,669,149 8,569 1,677,718
Arizona 957,874 2,770 259,073 1,219,717
California 975,018 726,570 46,636 5,269 1,753,493
Colorado 414,345 1,128 415,473
Hawaii 106,465 20,824 443 2 127,734
Idaho 15 11,099 3,288 14,402
Kansas 125,788 15 3,677 13,967 143,447
Montana 2,120 420 2,540
Nebraska 18,294 7 402 18,703
Nevada 152,275 33,363 299,327 484,965
New Mexico 3,163,121 1 17,104 3,180,226
North Dakota 900 1,212 2,112
Oregon 17,602 10,112 41 3,317 31,072
South Dakota 12 878 890
Utah 848,263 518 91,192 939,973
Washington 404,481 21,824 916 6,030 433,251
Wyoming 8,897 2 613 9,512
TOTAL 8,864,619 816,006 742,730 31,873 10,455,228
Source:
Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and Bureau, US General Service Administration,
October 1996.
202

Table 7 USDI National Park Service Land Ownership Data
Area, in acres.
Alaska 52,891,681
Arizona 2,629,633
California 4,615,013
Colorado 574,689
Hawaii 220,410
Idaho 86,866
Kansas 698
Montana 1,221,314
Nebraska 5,863
Nevada 165,500
New Mexico 371,827
North Dakota 71,640
Oregon 194,859
South Dakota 263,629
Utah 2,015,426
Washington 1,932,401
Wyoming 2,393,198
TOTAL 69,654,647
Source: Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and
Bureau, US General Service Administration, October 1996.
Table 8 Other Federal Agency Land Ownership Data
Area, in acres.
Alaska 22,851
Arizona 2,751
California 434,695
Colorado 358,175
Hawaii 1,627
Idaho 1,067,840
Kansas 97,088
Montana 316,204
Nebraska 119,139
Nevada 1,699,739
New Mexico 453,865
North Dakota 1,273,320
Oregon 133,625
South Dakota 60,455
Utah 660,613
Washington 752,979
Wyoming 815,841
TOTAL 8,270,807
Source: Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and
Bureau, US General Service Administration, October 1996.
203

Table 9 Percentage of State in Federal Land Ownership
Forest
Service
Bur of Land
Management
Bur of
Indian
Affairs
Fish and
Wildlife
Service
National
Park
Service
Dept of
Defense
Other
Federal
Percent of
State in
Federal
Ownership
Total Land in
State, in acres.
Alaska 6.0% 23.8% 0.3% 20.9% 14.5% 0.5% 0.0% 65.93% 365,481,600
Arizona 15.5% 19.6% 28.5% 2.4% 3.6% 1.7% 0.0% 71.25% 72,688,000
California 20.6% 14.5% 0.2% 0.4% 4.6% 1.7% 0.4% 42.41% 100,206,720
Colorado 21.8% 12.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 36.49% 66,485,760
Hawaii 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 7.1% 5.4% 3.1% 0.0% 15.55% 4,105,600
Idaho 38.6% 22.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 2.0% 63.46% 52,933,120
Kansas 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.85% 52,510,720
Montana 18.1% 8.6% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.3% 30.77% 93,271,040
Nebraska 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.51% 49,031,680
Nevada 8.3% 68.1% 1.8% 3.3% 0.2% 0.7% 2.4% 84.77% 70,264,320
New Mexico 12.0% 16.4% 10.7% 0.5% 0.5% 4.1% 0.6% 44.80% 77,766,400
North Dakota 2.5% 0.1% 2.0% 3.2% 0.2% 0.0% 2.9% 8.70% 44,452,480
Oregon 25.4% 26.3% 1.3% 1.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 54.55% 61,598,720
South Dakota 4.1% 0.6% 10.2% 2.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 15.99% 48,881,920
Utah 15.4% 43.4% 4.4% 0.8% 3.8% 1.8% 1.3% 70.89% 52,696,960
Washington 21.5% 0.9% 6.1% 0.5% 4.5% 1.0% 1.8% 36.19% 42,693,760
Wyoming 14.9% 29.5% 3.0% 0.1% 3.8% 0.0% 1.3% 52.67% 62,343,040
TOTAL 1,317,411,840
Source: Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and Bureau, US
General Service Administration, October 1996.
204

Wildland/Urban Interface Fire History
(A wildland/urban interface fire is defined as one that destroyed at least three structures and
burned over 25 acres of wildland.)
State Year Fire Name
Alaska
Arizona
California
Acres
Burned
Structures
Lost
1996 Prator Lake 120 3
Miller's Reach #2 37,336 454
2001 Red Fox 150 8
2002 West Fork Chena 22,251 3
Deaths
1983 Pretzer 200 3
1990 Dude 25,000 30 6
1995 Oldt 100 14
Bagdad 200 4
1996 Points 26 3
1997 Kuyhendall 410 6
2002 Bullock 30,563 7
Rodeo/Chediski 468,638 496
1955 Humboldt/Siskiyou 152,245 13
Refugio 84,770 20
1956 East Highlands 15,330 5 1
Sherwood 9,428 8
Newton 26,169 50
Hume 1,940 9
1960 Homstake 10,948 10
1961 Harlow 41,200 106 2
Bel Air 6,090 484
1964 Hanley/Series 71,601 174
Weldon/Series 11,650 20
Coyote 67,000 94 1
1965 Northern Cal Series 113,766 41
Suncrest 1,260 7
1967 Sence Ranch 17,431 5
Santa Susanna 25,000 10
Paseo Grande 48,639 61
Baliff 23,929 8 1
Woodson 17,560 30
1968 Louis 1,327 5
1969 Walker 17,000 8
1970 Statewide Series 567,508 722 19
Reche 4,168 3
Bear 53,100 54
1972 Swasey 1,933 8
Bradford 1,760 4
1973 Boulder 8,478 17
1975 Grundy 1,710 3
Pendleton 2,400 10
1976 Quarry 38,346 8
Jacksonville 5,307 3
Honey 1,482 3
1977 Sycamore 804 234
1978 Creighton Ridge 11,405 64
Mandeville Canyon 5,500 18
1979 Hesperia 1,525 25 1
Northern Cal Series 3,200 7
Laurel Canyon 150 24
Bernardo 9,000 10
1980 Tower House 2,349 3
Riverside 500 5
Dry Flat 28,655 6
Turner 28,000 7
Indian 28,200 7
Lakeland 8,400 4
Stable 5,482 65
Summit/Series 41,472 355
205

Panorama 23,600 7
Kiowa 2,440 11
1981 Thunder 11,500 29
Atlas Peak 22,000 69
Flat 1,500 3
Rieche/Series 29,704 6
Swall 1,900 3
Oat Mountain 17,500 9
Cow Mountain 25,534 4
1982 Gypsum 16,800 14
Daydon Haul 57,000 65
Dulzura 5,019 7
1983 Porta Costa Series 325 10
1985 Hidden Valley 1,250 20
Eight-Mile 462 13
Seco 1,954 3
Gorda Rat 55,889 8
Cherry 40,231 17
Las Pilitas 74,640 41
Pala 325 3
Wheeler 120,000 26
Miller 8,000 3
Deer 520 8
Delta 1,620 3
Lafayette 100 3
Lehr 200 64
Page Mill 100 13
1987 Dog Bar 362 9
Stanislaus Complex 144,762 28
Clark 37,530 4
Gulch 6,800 6
Yellow Complex 47,770 3
Glasgow 13,370 3
Salmon/St. Clair 8,600 35 1
Post 546 3
Baldwin Hills 500 21 2
Morse (Pebble Beach) 160 37
1988 Amador 600 3
Railroad 10,750 15
Mason 4,072 5
Orinda 15 7
Lake 10 4
Miller 38,600 7
49er 33,700 312
State 1807 4,738 5
Stagecoach 15
Rosa 4
Yucca 931 3
Fern 7,790 58
Preston 1,000 7
Geysers 352 7
PG E #19 8,648 3
Miller 10,000 18
1989 Kelly Ridge 4
Highway 26 400 9
Calaveras 425 4
Powerhouse 11,680 22
Olivas 813 3
Eagle 4,600 3
Poppet 1,328 3
Ortega 6,100 13
San Benito 52 7
Joshua 690 6
San Martin 375 17
Two Rock 161 7
Greenwood Series 159
Tuttletown 740 8
1990 Monterey 18 8
Paint 4,900 641 1
Carbon Canyon 6,640 14
206

Bedford 490 20
Glendale 75 50
Cottonwood 5
A Rock 12,136 66
Pine 125,892 27
Long Gulch 2,100 3
Knoll 300 7
1991 Fiddle 20 3
Tunnel 1,600 2900 25
1992 Borax 1,920 15
Jay 550 3
Maidu 675 10
Villa 6,700 19
Fawn 350 13
Fountain 63,960 636
Cleveland 24,580 26 2
Moccasin 8,370 6
Clear 190 5
Idaho 50 4
1993 Greenmeadow 40,051 66
Kinneloa 5,715 149 1
Stagecoach 546 8
Mill Creek 4,680 6
California 25,100 107
Ortega 21,392 15
Guejito 20,722 9
Laguna Canyon 14,808 366
Topanga 16,885 300 3
Reppier 5,956 15
Old Coach 2,139 36
1994 Kelsey 860 33
Raulson 1,000 13
Bailey 7,000 8
Broens 1,650 4
Creek 442 3
Highway 41 48,531 37
Lakeland 2,400 8
Scout 3,023 9
Lucas 8,464 40
Hemet Complex 19,200 14
1995 Jenny 420 6
Sycamore 10,000 3
Warners 2,400 20
Riverside 5,000 6
Bluff 2,624 3
Vision 12,354 45
Lopez 1,985 4
1996 Ellis 43 6
State 837 653 5
Weber 360 4
State 165 3
Dove 930 3
Riverside 40 3
Pechanga 1,336 3
Gifford 31 3
PGE #8 80 5
Stumpfield 3,000 43
Lightning #29 7,000 20
Peachland 25 4
Highway 58 33,094 13
Riverside 1,210 6
Harmoney 8,592 110
Rincon 1,800 6
Calabasas 13,010 6
1997 Riverside 320 3
Grove 1,235 3
Calimesa 377 9
Priest 250 10
Wohlford 457 8
Pamela 25 3
207

Pauba 7,800 10
Wildwood 940 6
Poppet 1,500 5
William 5,810 85
1998 Juniper 6,000 89
Edna 28,164 5 1
Taylor 2,160 5 1
Bitterwater Valley 420 5
1999 Lowen 2,000 23
Dunstone 268 3
Bloomer #3 2,590 9
Musty #3 7
Willow 21,900 60
Canyon #4 2,580 230
Rumsey 3,015 6
Shockey 3,885 3
Oregon 280 5
Jones 26,202 264
2000 Manter 72,750 16
Berryessa 1,731 15
Morgan 3,316 3
Happy 5,500 3
Union 350 5
2001 Viejas 2,300 16
Stimpson 100 4
Jackson 2,240 15
Creek 11,095 43
Leonard 5,167 22
North Fork 475 3
Bus 242 12
Oregon 1,680 33
Poe 8,333 170
Bell 1,204 5
Trough 24,970 30
Highway 4,125 8
Colorado
Star 16,761 4
Stables 6,544 4
2002 Galvilan 5,763 43
Troy 1,180 3
Loza 60 3
Hwy 58 1,380 6
Pines 61,690 160
Croy 3,127 34
Pine 1,200 7
Arrowhead 2,688 7
Wolf 21,645 6
Copper 23,407 26
Borel 3,430 19
Copo 1,460 3
Louisiana 6,574 7
Deer 1,800 94
McNally 150,696 17
Curve 20,857 73
Leona 5,124 16
Sierra 594 21
Williams 38,094 77
1989 Black Tiger 2,000 44
1990 Old Stage 2,000 10
1994 Hour Glass 1,275 13
Wake 3,846 3
1996 Buffalo Creek 10,000 10
1999 Monument 100 9
2000 Bobcat 10,600 22
High Meadow 10,927 51
Pony 5,240 4
2002 Big Fish 17,056 8
Coal Seam 12,209 43
Hayman 137,760 600
208

Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Iron Mountain 4,439 201
Lincoln Co Complex 10,000 17
Long Mesa 2,601 7
Million 9,346 13
Missionary Ridge 70,662 77
Valley 393 6
Panorama 1,700 6
Schoonover Gulch 3,860 13
2000 Puu Kapu 4,500 3
1989 Lowman 46,000 25
1991 Hauser Lk Complex 1,700 5 1
2000 Clear Creek 126,000 10
Burgdorf Junction 64,666 19
Fisher Springs 22,000 4
Lookout Point 4,000 3
Trail Creek 34,759 30
SCF Wilderness 171,560 22
North Fork Wilderness 14,506 5
Indian/Prospect 11,100 3
Morse 4,275 3
Information is not available.
Montana
1977 Pattee Canyon 1,200 7
1983 Baney Coulee 2,500 3
1984 Houghton Creek 12,061 3
Hawk Creek 180,508 44 1
1988 Red Bench 14,000 24
Storm Creek 30,000 12
Canyon Creek 120,000 6
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Whitehall 1,630 3
1991 Holter Lake 125 3 2
1998 Shepard Mountain 30,000 34
1999 NE Corner 3,917 10
Fishel Creek 28,155 5
Anelope 7,240 20
Outlook 6,952 10
2000 Canyon Ferry 43,922 50
Fort Howes 55800 4
Average Bad Day 1,310 11
Monture/Spread Ridge 21,800 4
Hell Creek 750 3
Valley Complex 173,563 227
Thursday 750 3
Blodget Trailhead 10,764 8
Gilger 640 3
Maloney Creek 72,000 12
Boulder Complex 12,604 9
Skalkaho Complex 64,794 4
2002 Piskun 5,000 4
1999 Thedford 75,000 15
1994 Crystal Peak 7,310 3
1996 Autumn Hills 3,800 4
1999 Spring Creek 200 2
2000 Coyote 15,000 3
South Cricket 65,000 5
1974 Spring 14,500 45
1993 Burgett 5,350 8
1996 Hondo 7,651 32
209

North Dakota
Oregon
2000 Cree 6,488 3
Scott Able 16,034 64
Manuelitas 1,410 4
Cerro Grande 47,650 350
Viveash 28,283 4
2002 Kokopelli 986 29
Penasco 15,904 12
Lakes Complex 4,096 4
1999 Gap 69,000 16
2002 Manvel 5,750 7
Kraft Complex 35,100 17
1975 Ten Mile Valley 232 4
1987 Bland Mountain 9,593 35
1988 Milepost 70 160 4
1990 Awbrey Hall 3,353 26
1992 East Evans Creek 10,135 5
Sage Flat 1,095 6
1994 Blackwell Road 65 14
Hull Mountain 7,990 44
1996 Wheeler Point 14,960 11
Skeleton 17,736 36
1998 Lone Pine 5,290 3
2000 East Complex 45,000 3
2001 Middle Fork 50 3
Quartz 6,102 5
2002 Flagtail 8,000 3
Winter 33,894 5
Squire 2,804 6
Shelton Ridge 12,681 6
Biscut 499,945 13
Eyerly 23,573 37
South Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
1959 Deadwood 2,500 60
1988 Westberry Trails 3,840 57
2000 Flagpole Mountain 7,800 4
Jasper 82,600 3
2002 Grizzly Gulch 11,589 7
Battle Creek 12,450 3
1990 Wasatch 43 2
2000 Box Canyon 200 3
2002 East Fork 14,208 55
1985 Barker Mountain 60,000 4
1987 Hangman Hills 1,500 24
1988 Dinkleman 50,000 3
1991 Firestorm 91 350,000 191 1
1992 Castle Rock Canyon 5,400 24
1994 Chelan/Leavenworth 58,000 54 1
1996 Bowie Road 3,020 7
1997 Red Lake 1,151 5
1998 Cleveland 118,500 14
2000 Rocky Hill 9,404 37
Goodnoe 4,800 3
Mule Dry 76,800 25
Eastside Complex 5,924 3
2002 Deer Point 42,674 5
1988 Clover-Mist 319,575 14
North Fork 531,182 7
2002 Hensel 14,730 7
210

About the Authors
William C. Teie retired from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)
after a successful 34-year career. He worked up through the ranks from seasonal firefighter to Deputy
Director for Fire Protection. In this position, he was responsible for all of the fire protection programs
within CDF.
Chief Teie was very active in the California fire service. He was on several statewide boards and
committees and was elected President of the California Fire Chiefs Association in 1986. He is a member
of the National Fire Protection Association and the Institute of Fire Engineers, an international organization
based in the United Kingdom.
He is the author of the Wildland Firefighting Fundamentals, Firefighter’s Handbook on Wildland
Firefighting, and Fire Officer’s Handbook on Wildland Firefighting and has developed several
other training and operational aids for the firefighter. He has just completed the adaptations of several of these handbooks
for use in the Republic of South Africa.
Brian F. Weatherford retired from CDF after a 35-year career that included fighting fires from
Alaska to Mexico and from Montana to California. He rose through the ranks from firefighter to fire
chief and at the time of his retirement commanded an organization including three county fire departments
and two city fire departments with 62 fire stations, 88 engine companies and nearly 900 paid and
volunteer firefighters.
He currently provides consulting services to local government agencies in the areas of fire protection
planning, budget development, organizational theory, and management audits for specialized services,
but only to the extent that these projects do not interfere with his primary avocation of fishing.

Deer Valley Press
5125 Deer Valley Road, Rescue, CA 95672
(530) 676-7401 Fax (530) 676-7418
www.deervalleypress.com