J.4.5 Climate, fuels, fire and decisions:The making of national monthly and seasonal wildland fire outlooks

Timothy J. Brown1*, Gregg G. Garfin2, Tom Wordell3, Rick Ochoa3, and Barbara Morehouse2

1Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV2University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

3National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID

1. INTRODUCTION

The record setting wildfire season of 2000sent a shockwave through land managementagencies and political bodies. A wildfiresomewhere in the U.S. was reported every singleday of the year. Not seen in more than half adecade, over 8 million acres burned fromapproximately 123,000 fires. Federal firesuppression costs exceeded $2 billion. Othercosts, though not precisely known as a grand total,were state and local suppression efforts, directand indirect economic losses from impactedcommunities, loss of property and damagedecosystems.

Cerro Grande and the northern Rockies firesculminated the 2000 season, and even by August,then-President Clinton directed the Secretaries ofAgriculture and Interior to develop a response tothe national fire problem. What followed in 2001was a revision of the 1995 Fire Policy to improveits implementation, the establishment of theNational Fire Plan, a stakeholder driven 10-yearcomprehensive strategy, and an infusion of nearlytwo b i l l ion do l lars for f i re f ight ing,rehabilitation/restoration, hazardous fuelsreduct ion, community assistance andaccountability. Clearly, the response was not justdirected at fire suppression. For the first time inthe history of U.S. wildfire business, significantpro-active strategies were openly encouragedwithin all of these facets simultaneously.

Of the numerous outcomes of this newopportunity were the hiring of approximately 20national interagency fire weather meteorologists,and the establishment of Predictive Services, aconcept to provide integrated information andforecasts of weather, climate, fuels and fire. The

Corresponding author address:Timothy Brown, Desert Research Institute, 2215 RaggioParkway, Reno, NV 89512-1095; Tel: 775-674-7090;Email: tbrown@dri.edu.

meteorologists were primarily hired to add value toexisting weather data and forecasts in the contextof fire and fuels information being assessed byagency fire intelligence personnel, and fire andfuels specialists. Predictive services was charteredto “integrate climate, weather, situation, resourcestatus and fuels information into products that willenhance the ability of managers to make sounddecisions for both short and long range strategydevelopment and resource allocation decisions,and ensure the safety of firefighting andemergency personnel” (http://www.nifc.gov/news/pred_services/Main_page.htm).

For the past several decades it has beencommon for fire management to utilize daily fireweather forecasts for tactical decisions, but anypredictions much longer than a day or two usuallyhave not been of direct interest. However, perhapstied to limited available resources, newmanagement objectives, accountability, andadvances in available tools and information, avalue in longer-range products is now beingrecognized for strategic planning.

In March 2003, for the first time ever, a teamof fire weather meteorologists, fire and fuelsspecialists, management and climatologists met toproduce the first comprehensive seasonal firepotential outlook for the U.S. The outlookincorporated past, present and future informationof climate and fuels, along with an accumulatedknowledge base of how these relate to fire. Theworkshop, co-organized by the NationalInteragency Coordination Center (NICC; PredictiveServices), the NOAA-funded Climate Assessmentfor the Southwest (CLIMAS; University of Arizona),and the Program for Climate, Ecosystem and FireApplications (CEFA; Desert Research Institute),included four tangible products: 1) geographicarea wildfire outlook reports; 2) standardizedprotocols for producing long-range fire dangeroutlooks; 3) two seasons of 2003 consensusclimate forecasts for wildfire fire management; and4) a NICC pre-season national wildfire fire outlook.

The workshop process provided a model andmechanism for increasing organizational capacity,enhancing multi-agency collaboration, improvingthe use of forecast information and climatologicalanalysis, and transitioning the results of researchto an operational process for improvedcommunication and decision making. Detaileddiscussion of the workshop can be found in Garfinet al (2003).

2. GEOGRAPHIC AREA OUTLOOKS

A key element to the success of producing auseful forecast was breakout groups that focusedon specific geographic area issues. Figure 1shows the eleven interagency geographic areacoordination centers (GACCs). The primaryresponsibility of a GACC is to provide logisticalsupport and fire, weather and fuels intelligence foranticipated and ongoing wildfire activity for allfederal and cooperating state fire suppressionagencies. During the breakout sessions, eachGACC group met in a round-table setting todiscuss relevant issues of weather, climate andfuels that could significantly impact the upcomingseason. Historical, present and predictedconditions were emphasized in the discussion.Historical information largely included the pastwinter season precipitation, a longer-term droughtperspective and carry over fuels (those that maynormally be reduced during winter; for example,grasses compacting from snow). The presentsituation primarily included the current state of thefuels, particularly fuel moisture characteristics(e.g., loading, vertical and horizontal continuity).Seasonal predictions focused on climate(temperature and precipitation) and fuelconditions.

The final outlook product was a combination ofthis quantitative information and forecasterjudgment. Considerable experience andknowledge was incorporated into the forecastprocess. In other words, the forecasts were by nomeans strictly quantitative based. Forecastuncertainty was primarily addressed by assigninglikelihoods to worst-, best-, and average-casescenarios. The high degree of coordination,communication, and cooperation within andbetween geographic area workgroups ultimatelylead to the overall success of the workshop.

Figure 1. Interagency geographic areas.

The text and accompanying photo (Figure 2)below is an example of the seasonal outlookcombined from the two California GACCs. Thisexecutive summary describes conditions expectedfor the state during the 2003 fire season as writtenin late February. The photo is provided to illustratethe drought/bug killed timber in the forested areaaround Lake Arrowhead as noted in the text. Theconcern about mortality and fire became reality atthe end of October when very extensive wildfireswith extreme fire behavior occurred in largelypopulated intermix areas near Los Angeles andSan Diego. The Lake Arrowhead forest was notburned this time, but largely because of a rapidlychanging weather system that brought increasedmoisture, precipitation and much coolertemperatures to the region as the fire frontencroached the surrounding lake area.

N. and S. California: Potential: Normal to AboveNormal. There are two particular areas of concernregarding fuel conditions in California. One is thedrought-affected, large dead fuel moistures of theEastern Modoc plateau and eastside of northernCalifornia. The second concern is the significant brushmortality and drought/bug-killed timber areas ofSouthern California (see image). The Los Padres,Angeles, and Cleveland National Forests have low tomoderate levels while the San Bernardino NF hasmoderate to high levels of brush and timber mortality.These are likely to cause extreme fire behavior evenunder moderate fire weather/fire danger conditions.Indications from the current weather and climate outlookare that fire season will start in the typical time framesacross much of California. However, the drier eastsideareas will see fire season start earlier and be of longerduration than normal. Fire danger is expected to beabove average in all parts of the state except thewestern two-thirds of northern California. Lightningoccurrence in Northern California has a very good

chance of exceeding that in 2002, as last year was wellbelow the 10-year average amount.

Figure 2. Timber area near Lake Arrowhead, CAshowing tree mortality from drought and bug kill. (Photosource: California Department of Forestry and FireProtection)

The verification of these forecasts is an areajust beginning to be addressed. Formalizeddefinitions and processes for quantitativeverification need to be established. This processhas been initiated, and will continue in PredictiveServices workshops and other relevant forums.

3. CONTENT AND PROTOCOLS

The final format of the area outlooks includedan executive summary, introduction and objectivesof the report, current conditions, climate andweather outlooks, fire occurrence and resourceoutlooks, future scenarios and probabilities,management implications, and concerns andsummary recommendations. These protocols willbe used in the preparation of succeeding outlooks.As might be expected, the executive summary is asynthesis of the key findings (such as in theCalifornia example above) that a fire managercould read in brief. The report introduction andobjectives are straightforward by primarily definingthe purpose of the outlook and how it might beused. Current conditions provides for a lengthytreatment of all physical elements that couldimpact the fire season. The climate and weatheroutlooks primarily focus on specific long-leadoutlooks, ENSO conditions, drought forecasts andfire weather indices. Fire occurrence and resource

outlooks are based upon some quantitative tools,but are perhaps more qualitative components ofthe outlook at present. The expected resourcesare largely based on experience, i.e., knowingwhat resources have been required in the pastgiven a particular fire season scenario. The futurescenarios and probabilities utilize some decisionsupport tools along with fuel and climateconsiderations developed in part from previousexperience and current season knowledge.Management implications and concerns addresshow the predicted climate and fuels might impactmanagement decisions and strategies. Finally, thesummary and recommendations suggest how theoutlook information might be utilized. Table 1shows the outlook report content and somespecific protocols to be considered.

4. CONSENSUS CLIMATE FORECAST

The primary purpose of producing a nationalconsensus climate forecast was three-fold: 1) toproduce seasonal climate forecasts for use indeveloping a national seasonal wildfire outlook; 2)to determine whether or not additional probabilisticinformation could be provided for areas whereindividual forecasts showed little confidence; and3) to directly integrate climate forecast informationinto specific stakeholder decision-making. A fourthaspect of this process was that it allowed firespecialists to interact directly with climate experts,and vice versa. Agencies that participated in thisproject included the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) ClimatePrediction Center (CPC), the NOAA – CooperativeInstitute for Research in Environmental Sciences(CIRES) Climate Diagnostics Center (CDC), theInternational Research Institute for ClimatePrediction (IRI) and the Scripps Institution ofOceanography Experimental Climate PredictionCenter (ECPC).

Seasonal forecasts of two-categoryprobabilistic temperature and precipitationdepartures from average were produced for thecontiguous United States and Alaska. Forecastconsensus was reached by combining severalmonthly and seasonal forecasts produced at CDC,CPC, ECPC and IRI. The forecast periods wereMarch-April-May (MAM) and June-July-August(JJA) 2003. A combination of dynamical andstatistical models from the respectiveorganizations, and forecaster judgment wereincorporated in producing the forecasts.Specifically, the IRI contribution was their mostcurrent seasonal forecasts based on the CCM3.2

(developed at the National Center for AtmosphericResearch), ECHAM4.5 (developed at the MaxPlank Institute), NCEP-MRF9 (developed at theNational Centers for Environmental Prediction),COLA2.x (developed at the University ofMaryland), and NSIPP (developed at the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration) modelsand sea surface temperature predictions (Masonet al. 1999). The ECPC contribution includedcurrent monthly forecasts from two versions of theGlobal Spectral model as well as the RegionalSpectral Model (Roads et al. 2001; Kanamitsu etal. 2002). The CPC contribution was the currentseasonal long-lead outlooks based on a dynamicalmodel, a statistical model, and long-term trend(http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day). The CDC contribution was based on anewly developed statistical model and analysis forprecipitation forecasts in the southwest U.S.(http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/~kew/SWcasts/index.html). In addition, it was based on ENSOcomposites for MAM and JJA during rapidlydeclining El Niño phases. These objectiveforecasts were then combined with forecasterjudgment including model forecast skill,temperature versus precipitation correlations andcurrent ENSO opinions.

The forecasts were produced during a round-table forum at the workshop. Forecast discussionlead to determining regions of warm/cool anddry/wet, and assigning a consensus probability.Since the forecasts were comprised of only twocategories, the probabilities simply represent thechance of above or below normal. For example, ifthe forecasters determined a 10% chance of theabove normal category occurring, then theprobability of the above normal category became50% + 10%, or 60%. Increasing percent valuesabove 50 indicates a relative increase in forecastconfidence. Given the current state of art forclimate forecasting, 55% would be considered lowconfidence (only a slight hedge), and 70% highconfidence. A forecast probability of 50% meansno forecast confidence for either category. Figure3 shows the temperature and precipitationconsensus March-April-May seasonal forecasts forthe contiguous U.S. Further detail of theseforecasts can be found in Brown et al (2003).

Figure 3. Temperature (top) and precipitation (bottom)consensus March-April-May seasonal forecasts for thecontiguous U.S. Above (warm/wet) and below (cool/dry)temperature and precipitation are denoted by red/greenand blue/yellow colors, respectively. Probabilities aregiven in bold numbers. No color shading denotes areasof no forecast confidence.

5. NATIONAL FIRE POTENTIAL OUTLOOK

One of the desired outcomes of the workshopwas to produce a national fire potential outlook.This product would be primarily utilized by NICCas guidance for seasonal allocation planning ofnational suppression resources, and for firemanagement and congressional briefings. A one-page flyer discussing the seasonal forecast wasproduced and distributed for the purpose of asynthesis briefing at the Washington level. Thenational fire potential map shown in Figure 4 wasproduced by the integration of the GACC regionaloutlooks. Geographic areas of above or belownormal potential are highlighted with red andgreen shading, respectively. Fire potential in thiscontext has yet to be well defined in a quantitativemanner. This will occur with the evolution ofPredictive Services and this particular product. Fornow, potential generally refers to areas that may

have departures from normal in terms of numbersof fires or area burned or a combination of both,but such that there may be significant impacts onsuppression resources. For example, a higherdemand for resources may be needed in theabove normal areas, and a lower demand in thebelow normal areas. However, the type and extentof resources might vary depending on the fueltypes and the reasons for the prediction (e.g.,long-term drought with no expected recovery,vegetation mortality, short-term precipitationdeficits, etc.). The map shading does notnecessarily imply anomalous potential for theentire six-month period, though this could bepossible. The monthly and 10-day forecasts thateach GACC produces better address theintraseasonal variability that usually occurs.Though this paper has focused primarily on thedevelopment of a seasonal forecast, the monthlyforecasts are done within each GACC, utilizingmuch of the same information.

Figure 4. National wildland fire outlook for March thoughAugust 2003.

6. CONCLUSION

The objectives of the workshop were toestablish protocols for producing monthly andseasonal fire outlooks utilizing integratedinformation of climate, fuels and fire. Participantfeedback was encouraged during the workshop inorder to improve the structure and mechanisms ofproducing seasonal outlooks and their content.Communication between climate forecasters andGACC specialists was strongly encouraged. Anoutcome of the workshop that was not explicitlypredicted was the strong communication andcooperation between the GACCs. In fact, thewhole process was a remarkable synergy between

a large number of individuals with varying areas ofexpertise and opinions to produce a regionalforecast of fire potential, that by definition, has toinclude climate, weather, fuels and firecomponents. The definition also has to includedecisions, not only during the making of theseasonal forecast itself, but during the utilization ofthe product by decision-makers in a manner thatleads to effective outcomes.

There has not been developed a quantitativemethod for determining the success of theseasonal fire outlook. However, there will be twoworkshops in 2004 to again produce seasonaloutlooks. The first workshop will be held in lateJanuary and focus on the eastern U.S., a regionthat typically has two fire seasons – spring andautumn. The second workshop will be held in earlyApril, and will be national in scope, though muchemphasis will be placed on the West where thebulk of fires occur in summer. The simple fact thatthese workshops are desired suggests a level ofsuccess. The making of these forecasts hasprovided an opportunity for specialists to think indetail about the various pieces of the fire puzzle,and integrate them by thought and communicationinto a coherent picture comprised of manyphysical factors. At the very least, firemanagement has a support tool to allow forproactive thinking and to provide accountability fordecisions.

7. REFERENCES

Brown, T.J., A.G. Barnston, J.O. Roads, R. Martin,and K.E. Wolter, 2003: 2003 SeasonalConsensus Climate Forecasts for Wildland FireManagement. Experimental Long-Lead ForecastBulletin, March 2003, Vol. 12, 4 pp.

Garfin, G., T. Wordell, T. Brown, R. Ochoa and B.Morehouse, 2003. Nat ional SeasonalAssessment Workshop, Final Report, Universityof Ar izona, 24 pp. [Avai lable athttp://www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/]

Kanamitsu, M., A. Kumar, H.-M. H. Juang, W.Wang, F. Yang, J. Schemm, S.-Y. Hong, P.Peng, W. Chen and M. Ji, 2002: NCEPDynamical Seasonal Forecast System 2000.Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 1019-1037.

Mason et al., 1999: The IRI seasonal climateprediction system and the 1997/98 El Ninoevent. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 1953-1873.

Roads, J.O., S-C. Chen and F. Fujioka, 2001:ECPC’s Weekly to Seasonal Global Forecasts.Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 82, 639-658.

Table 1. Fire potential seasonal outlook content and protocols.A. Executive Summary

1. A specific forecast statement (i.e., “the bottom line”) should be explicitly included in theexecutive summary and final summary and recommendations. Include a statement about yourconfidence in the forecast. Mention why you do or do not have confidence, based on yourassessment of the various tools used in your forecast.

B. Introduction and Objectives1. Include guidelines for use of the report and a disclaimer.

C. Current Conditions (including comparison with historical records)1. Snow (SNOTEL data, SWE)2. Precipitation anomalies (recent week, month, water year)3. Temperature anomalies (recent week, month)4. ENSO and other climate indices impact on weather and atmospheric circulation5. Weather and atmospheric circulation6. NFDRS, Fire Danger, and other fire potential indicators7. Drought indices and maps (PDSI, SPI, KBDI, soil moisture, ground water, etc.)8. Vegetation status (NDVI, Greenness imagery)9. Fuel moisture (live, dead and foliar if known)10. Fire occurrence data (number, size, duration if known for current year)11. Fire behavior observations and/or Farsite run comparisons (if appropriate)

D. Climate and Weather Outlooks1. Long-range climate outlooks2. Projected atmospheric circulation3. ENSO and other relevant index forecasts4. Drought forecasts (including NCDC drought amelioration)5. Soil moisture forecasts6. Fire weather indices

E. Fire Occurrence and Resource Outlooks1. Estimates on number of fires (based on historic lightning episode information, acres burned,

duration, Scripps/Westerling model, and others)2. Estimates of expected resource needs

F. Future Scenarios and Probabilities1. Fire Family Plus2. Priority sub-regions within Geographic Area3. Fuel-type considerations4. Climate considerations5. Season Ending Event Probabilities

G. Management Implications and ConcernsH. Summary and Recommendations