Analysing initial attack on wildland fires using stochastic simulation*
Jeremy S. Fried A D , J. Keith Gilless B and James Spero C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, PO Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208, USA.
B University of California, Berkeley, College of Natural Resources, 207 Giannini Hall, MC #3310, Berkeley, CA 94720-3310, USA.
C Fire and Resource Assessment Program, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FRAP, 1300 U Street, Sacramento, CA 95818, USA.
D Corresponding author. Email: usfs@jeremyfried.net
International Journal of Wildland Fire 15(1) 137-146 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF05027
Submitted: 15 March 2005 Accepted: 6 October 2005 Published: 6 March 2006
Abstract
Stochastic simulation models of initial attack on wildland fire can be designed to reflect the complexity of the environmental, administrative, and institutional context in which wildland fire protection agencies operate, but such complexity may come at the cost of a considerable investment in data acquisition and management. This cost may be well justified when it allows for analysis of a wider spectrum of operational problems in wildland fire protection planning. The California Fire Economics Simulator version 2 (CFES2), is a sophisticated stochastic simulation model designed to facilitate quantitative analysis of the potential effects of changes in many key components of most wildland fire systems, e.g. availability and stationing of resources, dispatch rules, criteria for setting fire dispatch level, staff schedules, and deployment and line-building tactics. The CFES2 model can also be used to support strategic planning with respect to vegetation management programs, development at the wildland–urban interface, reallocation of responsibilities among fire protection agencies, and climatic change. The analytical capacity of stochastic simulations models to address such key issues is demonstrated using the CFES2 model in four case studies addressing the impact on initial attack effectiveness of: (1) multiple fire starts; (2) diversion of firefighting resources to structure protection; (3) alternate stationing of firefighting resources; and (4) multi-agency cooperation.
Additional keywords: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; California Fire Economics Simulator; fire protection planning; forest fire; wildfire.
References
Allen D, Mees R, Bednar L, Lee G (1987) ‘Analysis of fire data and the influence of multiple fires on suppression effectiveness for selected areas in California.’ (Claremont Graduate School Mathematics Clinic: Claremont, CA)
Alvarado E, Sandberg DV, Bare BB (1999) Analysis of area burned by wildfires through the partitioning of a probability model. In ‘Proceedings of the symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: bottom lines’, San Diego, California, 5–9 April 1999. (Tech. coords A Gonzalez-Gaban, PN Omi) pp. 59–68. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-173. (Albany, CA)
Bratten FW (1970) ‘Allocation model for fire fighting resources – a progress report’. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station Research Note PSW-RN-214. (Berkeley, CA)
Bratten FW, Davis JB, Flatman GT, Keith JW, Rapp SR, Storey TG (1981) ‘FOCUS: a fire management planning system – final report.’ USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-49. (Albany, CA)
Deeming JE, Burgan RE, Cohen JD (1977) ‘The National Fire Danger Rating System – 1978.’ USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report INT-GTR-39. (Ogden, UT)
Donovan GH, Rideout DB, Omi PN (1999) The economic efficiency of the National Fire Management Analysis System and FIREPRO. In ‘Proceedings of the symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: bottom lines’, San Diego, California, 5–9 April 1999. (Tech. coords A Gonzalez-Gaban, PN Omi) pp. 99–106. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-173. (Albany, CA)
Finney MA (1998) ‘FARSITE: Fire area simulator—model development and evaluation.’ USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station Research Paper RMRS-RP-4. (Missoula, MT)
Fried JS , Fried BD
(1996) Simulating wildfire containment with realistic tactics. Forest Science 42, 267–281.
Fried JS, Gilless JK (1988a) Modification of an initial attack simulation model to include stochastic components. In ‘Proceedings of the 1988 symposium on systems analysis in forest resources’, Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California, 29 March–1 April 1988. (Eds BM Kent, LS Davis) pp. 235–246. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-GTR-161. (Fort Collins, CO)
Fried JS , Gilless JK
(1988b) Stochastic representation of fire occurrence in a wildland fire protection planning model for California. Forest Science 34, 948–955.
Fried JS, Gilless JK (1999) ‘CFES2: The California Fire Economics Simulator version 2 User’s Guide.’ Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 21580. (University of California: Oakland)
Fried JS, Torn MS , Mills E
(2004) The impact of climate change on wildfire severity: a regional forecast for northern California. Climatic Change 64, 169–191.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gilless JK, Fried JS (1991) Implementation of a wildland fire protection planning system by a state resource management agency: simulation proves more useful than optimization. In ‘Proceedings of the 1991 Symposium on systems analysis in forest resources’, Charleston, South Carolina, 3–7 March 1991. (Compiler M Buford) pp. 312–319. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station General Technical Report SE-GTR-74. (Ashville, NC)
Gilless JK , Fried JS
(1999) Stochastic representation of fire behavior in a wildland fire protection planning model for California. Forest Science 45, 492–499.
Lundgren S (1999) The National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) Past 2000: A new horizon. In ‘Proceedings of the symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: bottom lines’, San Diego, California, 5–9 April 1999. pp. 71–78. (Tech. coords A Gonzalez-Gaban, PN Omi) USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-173. (Albany, CA)
McAlpine R , Hirsch K
(1999) An overview of LEOPARDS: The level of protection analysis system. Forestry Chronicle 75, 615–621.
Mees RM (1978) ‘Computing arrival times of firefighting resources for initial attack.’ USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-27. (Berkeley, CA)
Mills TJ, Bratten FW (1982) ‘FEES: Design of a fire economic evaluation system.’ USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-65. (Berkeley, CA)
Simard AJ, Young A (1977) ‘AIRPRO – an airtanker productivity computer simulation model – the Fortran program (summary).’ Ontario Information Report FF-X-64. (Forest Fire Research Institute, Canadian Forest Service: Ottawa)
Simard AJ, Young A (1978a) ‘AIRPRO – an air tanker productivity computer simulation model – the equations (documentation).’ Ontario Information Report FF-X-66. (Forest Fire Research Institute, Canadian Forest Service: Ottawa)
Simard AJ, Young A (1978b) ‘AIRPRO – an airtanker productivity computer simulation model – validation.’ Ontario Information Report FF-X-68. (Forest Fire Research Institute, Canadian Forest Service: Ottawa)
Simard AJ, Young A (1978c) ‘AIRPRO – an air tanker productivity computer simulation model – application.’ Ontario Information Report FF-X-69. (Forest Fire Research Institute, Canadian Forest Service: Ottawa)
Torn MS , Fried JS
(1992) Predicting the impacts of global warming on wildland fire. Climatic Change 21, 257–274.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
USDA Forest Service (1985) ‘National fire management analysis system user’s guide. Release of the initial action assessment model (FPL-IAA2).’ (Aviation and Fire Management: Washington, DC)
Wiitala MR (1999) Assessing the risk of cumulative burned acreage using the Poisson probability model. In ‘Proceedings of the symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: bottom lines’, San Diego, California, 5–9 April 1999. (Tech. coords A. Gonzalez-Gaban, PN Omi) pp. 51–57. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-173. (Albany, CA)
* This article was written and prepared by US Government employees on official time and is therefore in the public domain and not subject to copyright.
1 Metric area units are not used in this paper because the CFES version 2 simulation model was designed to have size classes and simulation limits expressed in acres to be consistent with the incident reporting system used by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and with that agency’s preference for using English units in their planning documents.
