|
Fire behavior modelers have done an admirable job with the information they have been given to work with, but that information has typically been rudimentary at best. The lack of sophisticated instrumentation and the high costs associated with the investigation of fire behavior phenomena have historically stymied even the most promising lines of attack. This has almost invariably resulted in a leap from theory and small scale laboratory experiments directly to operational models, the results of which leave much to be desired. Most of these models have yet to be field verified in an orderly fashion and their underlying assumptions are usually too restrictive to use them at the upper end of the scale where the most crucial knowledge gaps exist from the standpoint of both fire suppression and human safety. If we are to make progress in our understanding of high-intensity fires, it is incumbent upon fire researchers to provide modelers with a vastly improved robust database. Achieving this goal will, however, require a change in the collective thinking of fire research administrators. This is not to say that we haven't made considerable gains over the past ½ century. The first of three US Forest Service fire laboratories was established at Macon, GA in 1958 as a cooperative venture with the Georgia Forestry Commission. A close working relationship was established with many of the southern states that continues today in spite of closure of Southern Forest Fire Lab in 1987. Together we have developed the knowledge that has led to the acceptable fire behavior prediction of low to moderate intensity fires. In fact, problems with the intentional use of fire are now typically smoke-related rather than control-related when published guidelines are followed and forecast weather materializes. This low-intensity fire database, however, is of only limited use in predicting the behavior of that very small number of wildfires that cause the overwhelming majority of damage sustained and fire suppression costs. I will share some of the photos of erratic and/or high-intensity fire behavior phenomena that I've accumulated over the past 45 years to set the stage for a discussion of current knowledge gaps. I believe that emerging technologies and a renewed national commitment have momentarily combined into a unique but fleeting window of opportunity for fire behavior research to make significant headway. In my mind the best way to accomplish this task is to assemble a team of researchers dedicated to the case study of dangerous wildfires as they occur, and I briefly outline some of the questions I think should be addressed. George Byram outlined this concept in his 1964 Problem Analysis and I believe his template is still valid. This effort will be costly, but I think the end result will be prediction of erratic fire behavior and potential blowup conditions that will result in fewer harrowing moments for suppression forces and reduced levels of risk to the general public. Even if we are fully successful, it should be recognized that accurate and precise prediction of fire behavior will not eliminate conflagrations; such fires will continue as long as hazardous accumulations of fuel exist in a fire-dominated landscape. We will simply be better prepared to predict the behavior they are likely to exhibit and be able to deal with it more effectively and safely. |