Value and Challenges 

of Conducting Rapid 

Response Research on 

Wildland Fires 

L. Lentile, P. Morgan, C. Hardy, 

A. Hudak, R. Means, R. Ottmar,

P. Robichaud, E. Kennedy Sutherland,

J. Szymoniak, F. Way, J. Fites-Kaufman,

S. Lewis, E. Mathews, H. Shovic,

and K. Ryan

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-193

July 2007
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Lentile, L.; Morgan, P.; Hardy, C.; Hudak, A.; Means, R.; Ottmar, R.; Robichaud, P.; Kennedy Sutherland, E.; 

Szymoniak, J.; Way, F.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Lewis, S.; Mathews, E.; Shovik, H.; Ryan, K. 2007. Value 

and challenges of conducting rapid response research on wildland fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-193. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 11 p.

Abstract

Rapid Response Research is conducted during and immediately after wildland fires, in coordination with 

fire management teams, in order to collect information that can best be garnered in situ and in real-time. 

This information often includes fire behavior and fire effects data, which can be used to generate practical tools such as predictive fire models for managers. Drawing upon lessons learned from fire managers 

and researchers working on active wildland fires, we identify challenges including high costs, logistics, 

and safety; understanding and fitting into the fire management organization; building relationships with 

managers and other researchers; and science delivery. Our recommendations for safer and more effective 

Rapid Response Research are that researchers must understand the fire organizations and their objectives because a fire manager’s primary responsibility is to manage the fire safely, not support research. 

In addition, researchers must be prepared with equipment, a “red card” signifying sufficient training and 

fitness, and appropriate knowledge when arriving to do research on a fire. Further, researchers must have 

and follow an operations plan. We recommend using a liaison to build strong relationships with managers 

and sharing what was learned. Science guided by questions that are important to managers is essential to 

improving both the understanding of wildland fire dynamics and developing strategies to address fire risk, 

rehabilitation, and restoration, yet researchers must be aware of the challenges of conducting research on 

active wildland fires.

Keywords: Rapid Response Research, wildland fire, Incident Management Teams, Joint Fire Science 

Program, burn severity

Cover Photos:

Top: Colin Hardy presents the Rapid Response Research operations plan to the Incident Management Team on the Dragon Complex Wildland 

Fire Use Incident, North Rim of the Grand Canyon, AZ. Photo by: Sharon Hood (USDA FS), 2005.

Second from top: Fire-proofed video systems and instrumentation for measuring heat flux, fire behavior, and local weather are being installed by 

Jason Forthofer (sitting at left) and Colin Hardy (right), on the Dragon Complex Wildland Fire Use Incident, North Rim of the Grand Canyon, 

AZ. Photo by: Dan Jimenez (USDA FS), 2005.

Third from top: Steve Baker and Emily Lincoln are sampling smoke from smoldering duff following the passage of the wildfire flaming front in 

Alaska. Photograph by: Cyle Wold (USDA FS), 2004.

Bottom: (From left to right) Researchers Alistair Smith, Carter Stone, Jonathan Sandquist, Andrew Hudak, and Sarah Lewis assess fire effects 

shortly after the 2003 Wedge Canyon Fire, north of Glacier National Park, MT. Photo by: Don Shipton (USDA FS), 2003.
Author Profiles

Leigh Lentile is a fire ecologist at the University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID.

Penelope Morgan is a professor and fire ecologist at the 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Colin Hardy is a program manager and research forester for 

the Fire, Fuels and Smoke Science Program located at the 

Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Missoula Fire Sciences 

Laboratory, Missoula, MT.

Andrew Hudak is a research forester and landscape ecologist with the Forests and Woodlands Ecosystems Research 

Program located at the Rocky Mountain Research Station’s 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, ID.

Robert Means is the fire ecology, forestry and wildland fire use 

program lead for Wyoming Bureau of Land Management.

Roger Ottmar is a research forester with the Fire and 

Environmental Research Applications Team located at the 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire 

Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA.

Peter Robichaud is a research engineer with the Air, 

Water­shed and Aquatics Science Program located at the 

Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, Moscow, ID.

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland is a research biologist with 

the Forests and Woodlands Ecosystems Research Program 

located at the Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Missoula 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.

Acknowledgments 

This research was supported in part by funds provided by the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, in cooperation with 

the University of Idaho (JVA 03-JV-11222065-279). Additional funding was provided 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Joint Fire Science Program (Project Number: 03-2-1-02) and the National 

Fire Plan. The authors would like to thank Heather Heward for her assistance with 

editorial review.

John Szymoniak is a program manager for the Wildland Fire 

Research, Development, and Application Unit, located at the 

National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID.

Frederick Way is the District Ranger, Three Rivers Ranger 

District, Colville National Forest, Colville, WA.

JoAnn Fites-Kaufman is an ecologist with the Tahoe National 

Forest, Adaptive Management Services, Nevada City, CA.

Sarah Lewis is a civil engineer with the Air, Watershed and 

Aquatics Science Program located at the Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, ID.

Ed Mathews is a forester and research liaison with the Fire, 

Fuels and Smoke Science Program located at the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station’s Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.

Henry Shovic is a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

team leader and soil scientist on the Gallatin National Forest, 

Bozeman, MT.

Kevin Ryan is a program manager for LANDFIRE National 

Fuels and Vegetation Mapping Project located at the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station’s Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.

Contents

Page

Introduction.............................................................................................................1

How Does Rapid Response Research Differ from Other Fire Research?......2

How is Rapid Response Research Conducted? ............................................3

What is the Value of Rapid Response Research?..........................................5

Challenges..............................................................................................................7

Recommendations..................................................................................................8

Conclusions..........................................................................................................10

References ...........................................................................................................10

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007 

Value and Challenges of Conducting 

Rapid Response Research 

on Wildland Fires

L. Lentile, P. Morgan, C. Hardy, A. Hudak, R. Means, 

R. Ottmar, P. Robichaud, E. Kennedy Sutherland, 

J. Szymoniak, F. Way, J. Fites-Kaufman, S. Lewis, 

E. Mathews, H. Shovic, and K. Ryan

Introduction _________

Rapid Response Research provides 

scientists an opportunity to interact 

with fire management teams on ac-­

tive fires and to observe, quantify, 

and collect data that might otherwise 

be unavailable. Data relating to fire 

behavior, fire effects, fuel treatments, 

or social responses are often more 

reliable, accurate, and valuable if 

measured in situ during an active 

wildland fire or in the recent aftermath. 

A well-­organized and pre-planned 

Rapid Response study can provide 

real-time information and practical 

data that can be used to link fire effects 

to conditions before, during, and after 

fires—information critical to build-­

ing the next generation of tools for 

forecasting the consequences of fire 

and fuels management (Lentile and 

others 2007). The products of Rapid 

Response Research help fire manag-­

ers and local land managers make 

more informed decisions about the 

ecological and social consequences 

of fire. However, Rapid Response 

Research complicates resource and 

personnel management for incident 

managers during critical emergency 

periods on wildland fires. Science 

driven by the management issues and 

guided by questions that are important 

to managers is essential to improving 

both the understanding of wildland fire 

dynamics and developing strategies to 

address fire risk, rehabilitation, and 

restoration, yet researchers must be 

aware of the challenges of conducting 

research on active wildland fires. 

Increasingly, scientists are tasked 

with seeing their science used, yet 

effective science delivery is chal-­

lenging (Landry and Amara 2001, 

Rogers 2002). Fire science is shaped 

by the needs and expectations of fire 

managers, just as science is shaped by 

institutions and needs in other fields 

(Gieryn 2000). With the recent focus 

on federal government accountability, 

there is an urgent need to demonstrate 

the tangible benefits from research 

and effectively address challeng-­

ing fire management issues that are 

grounded in science. Fire scientists 

and fire managers have long worked 

closely together, but they must work 

together even more closely if they are 

to address these challenges.

In this paper, we discuss the value, 

challenges, and what has been collec-­

tively learned from many researchers, 

some of whom have been doing Rapid 

Response Research on fires long be-­

fore it was formally named. Teams 

of research scientists and technicians 

have an increasing presence within 

fire camps. Demands for information 

and accountability from the media and 

general public also peak during large 

fires burning in forests and rangelands, 

especially those fires that border the 

wildland urban interface. The added 

safety and logistical requirements 

needed for Rapid Response Research 

are justifiable only if the research 

data can be effectively collected, and 

we learn information that we cannot 

learn any other way. We will also 

share research successes and failures 

and feedback that we have received. 

Lastly, we reflect on the lessons 

learned from both fire scientists and 

fire managers and make recommen-­

dations for safer and more effective 

Rapid Response Research.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

Figure 1. Carter Stone (sitting at left), Jim Hedgecock (center), and Andrew Hudak (right), assess fire 

effects on soil and vegetation after the Black Mountain Fire, near Missoula, MT.

Photo by: Don Shipton, (USDA FS), 2003. 

How Does Rapid Response 

Research Differ from Other 

Fire Research? 

Certain types of information or data 

that are essential to our understanding 

of wildland fire can only be obtained 

during or immediately after a fire 

(http://jfsp.nifc.gov/AFPs/2006_1_

AFP.doc). For example, in situ mea-­

sures of active fire characteristics, 

such as flame length or rate of spread, 

are more informative than estimates 

based on inference or models. Rapid, 

well organized, and pre-planned 

responses from the science commu-­

nity are required to take advantage 

of opportunities to gather data on 

actively burning fires and improve 

understanding of how first-order fire 

effects relate to pre-fire forest structure 

and condition and fire behavior. 

Similarly, Rapid Response Re-­

search may provide the critical link 

in developing tools for predicting 

and mapping the degree of ecosystem 

change induced by the fire process 

and the post-fire residual ecosystem 

structures that dictate second-order 

fire effects. This information can lead 

to improved understanding of the role 

of fire in creating conditions that drive 

post-wildfire ecosystem processes, 

structures, and functions.

Critical data may be lost if advanced 

planning and funding for a timely 

research response are not in place. 

Often, by the time funding is obtained, 

the research opportunity has passed 

or precipitation, faded memories, 

changing seasons, and other factors 

have masked or destroyed important 

information. In the past, lack of fund-­

ing, inadequate pre-season planning 

and coordination, poor adoption or 

adherence by researchers to the Inci-­

dent Command System, and lack of 

acceptance or tolerance of research by 

Incident Management Teams (IMTs) 

have hampered research on active 

fires. The Governing Board of the 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP)—a 

partnership of six federal wildland fire 

management and research organiza-­

tions—has provided financial support 

for teams of research scientists and 

technical specialists that can mobilize 

quickly to investigate fire behavior or 

fire effects on active fire incidents. 

JFSP funding provides scientific in-­

formation and support for fuel and fire 

management programs and requires 

scientist-manager partnerships along 

with strong emphasis on transferring 

research findings to managers in the 

field.

How is Rapid Response 

Research Conducted?

Advance planning is crucial. Rapid 

Response teams must coordinate with 

fire management teams to quantify 

conditions immediately before, during, and after wildfires and prescribed 

fires. Rapid Response projects are 

expected to take advantage of op-­

portunities to obtain information on 

large fires. Traditionally, researchers 

conceive research questions and de-­

sign experiments beforehand, submit 

competitive research proposals, and if 

awarded, develop operations plans, 

participate in training sessions, and 

purchase equipment. However, with 

Rapid Response Research, the study 

area is not defined until after a fire 

ignites and various research criteria 

are met. Researchers must be ready to 

decide within days or hours whether 

or not a given fire will be sampled 

and then travel to the fire on short 

notice, strategize data collection, and 

coordinate with IMTs to ensure safe 

operations. Rapid Response Research 

teams must be prepared for efficient 

mobilization, be flexible, and be cog-­

nizant of management concerns. 

Researchers are engaged with teams 

managing active fires. Researchers 

must understand the fire management 

organizations because they must work 

closely with them without compro-­

mising the managers’ primary tasks. 

Fish and Stream Resources

One example of Rapid 

Response Research comes 

from a team led by Elaine 

Kennedy Sutherland, research biologist with the 

Rocky Mountain Research 

Station’s Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory in Missoula, MT. 

Sutherland’s team performed 

Rapid Response Research on 

seven fires around Missoula 

in 2003, focusing on fire 

effects on fish and fish habitat. The specific objectives 

of Sutherland’s research included: 1) collect pre- and 

post-fire data on riparian 

vegetation, stream channel 

morphology, and fish habitat; 2) quantify the magnitude 

of fish kill; and 3) monitor 

long-term system recovery. 

Coordinating with land management decision-makers and 

IMTs, a crew of six researchers located small streams with 

known native trout populations or potential trout habitat 

and established sample sites 

near actively burning fires. 

They chose locations likely 

to burn in a day or two and 

took measurements, set up instruments, and surveyed fish 

populations. In some cases, 

fires burned the sites or areas 

immediately upstream, and 

sometimes fire never reached 

the sites sampled. After the 

fires, fish populations were resurveyed and measurements 

re-taken. For some data, the 

sites were monitored for days 

or weeks. The data collected 

during this project addressed 

the research objectives but 

were also useful for the IMT—

particularly the resource specialist and fish biologists—in 

developing Burned Area

Emergency Response (BAER) 

team objectives. Presentations 

were made to fire management teams during incident 

briefings and the data were made available immediately post-fire. This work 

would not have been possible without the long-term planning of many individuals, and the need for this organized planning must be understood before 

undertaking Rapid Response Research.

Figure 2. Damien Cremins, fire technician, 

measuring and counting pebble size in a tributary 

of Fish Creek in the Lolo National Forest, MT.

Photo by: Matt Burbank 

(USDA FS), 2003.

Figure 3. Dead westslope cutthroat trout 

found in a tributary of Fish Creek in the Lolo 

National Forest, MT.

Photo by: Ethan Mace 

(USDA FS), 2003.
 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

There are multiple types of wildland 

fire IMTs, some national and some 

local, that manage wildland fires 

and other “all-risk” incidents such 

as hurricanes. Local land managers 

request the support of teams when fire 

management exceeds local capacity. 

Fire Use Management Teams (FUMT) 

are specifically organized for wildland 

fire use incidents (wildland fire for 

resource benefit). There are currently 

7 of these teams nationally. They 

may also be used to implement other 

appropriate management responses, 

including the full-range of suppression 

responses according to pre-determined 

fire and resource criteria. These teams 

each consist of seven to 10 people 

responsible for managing from 10 

to more than 200 other people. Their 

primary objective is to complete a plan 

for long-term management of the fire, 

then implement strategies and tactics 

in the plan. IMTs range from Type 

1, the most highly trained national 

teams, to Type 5. Type 1 teams are 

used primarily for the most complex 

wildfires. These teams consist of 33+ 

personnel plus a large support staff 

and on-the-ground firefighters. Their 

primary objective is to develop and 

implement the short-term strategies 

and tactics needed to meet agency 

objectives. Typically, these teams 

manage 500 to 1,500+ people. There 

are currently 17 of these teams na-­

tionally. Type 2 IMTs are regionally 

organized and supported teams used 

primarily for wildfire incidents whose 

complexity has exceeded local unit 

capabilities. These teams consist of 

33 people plus additional support and 

on-the-ground firefighters. Typically, 

they manage 150 to more than 500 

people and related resources. Their 

primary objectives are to develop 

and implement the short-term strate-­

gies and tactics needed to meet local 

land management objectives. There 

are approximately 56 of these teams 

nationally. Both the IMT Type 1 and 

2 teams can be assigned to “all-risk” 

incidents. Type 3, 4, and 5 IMTs are 

local teams responsible for initial and 

extended attack (after the fire escapes 

initial attack capabilities). Their 

primary objectives are to develop and 

implement the tactics to suppress a 

wildland fire. Area Command Teams 

areoccasionally assigned to coordinate 

and prioritize multiple IMTs within a 

specific area. These teams consist of 

four to five people with no tactical 

responsibilities. When fires burn for 

weeks, they are managed by multiple 

teams. One team replaces another as 

fire conditions change or as each team 

completes the maximum number of 

days they are allowed to work. 

Applied research that provides 

real time data and information builds 

credibility, increases the likelihood 

of science application, and fosters 

opportunity for future collaboration 

between scientists and managers. 

Familiarity with the fire manage-­

ment program and its science needs 

increases the potential for meaning-­

ful data collection and interpretation. 

Some fire management teams more 

readily welcome researchers on fires 

than do others. This depends on fire 

conditions and objectives, but also on 

building personal relationships and 

credibility between researchers and 

team members. 

Peter Robichaud, research engineer 

with the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station Forestry Sciences Lab in 

Moscow, ID, conducts Rapid Response 

Research on post-fire hydrological response and soil erosion mitigation. 

Robichaud’s research teams have installed eight paired watersheds and 

five hillslope-plot sites on large fires in 

six western U.S. states (ID, WA, MT, 

CA, AZ, CO). Immediate post-fire and 

annual monitoring of soil infiltration 

and erosion rates on these sites has 

provided data on emergency stabilization treatment effectiveness and initial 

recovery. These data have been used to 

expand the current suite of web-based 

erosion prediction tools and to develop a new model, Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT). Information about 

prescribed erosion control measures, 

such as seeding, mulching, and contour-felled logs, has allowed BAER teams to change 

contract specifications, alter treatments, and improve effectiveness (Robichaud 2005). 

Robichaud’s research has provided data to test equipment such as the DMM 600 duff 

moisture meter (Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT) and the mini-disk infiltrometer (Decagon 

Devices, Pullman, WA), which may help to identify potential high erosion areas, streamline 

treatments, and reduce costs. Often there is a unique window of opportunity to extend 

preliminary results to end-users. Researchers need to take advantage of such opportunities 

to work with those who will use their findings. Robichaud provides an up-front and rapid 

justification of why his research is necessary and useful, and then provides a close-out 

briefing and/or presentation. Although analysis is incomplete during the close-out briefing, 

Robichaud shares anticipated results, benefits of the research, and reasons why managers 

should care about these results.

Figure 5. Sarah Lewis uses a mini-disk 

Infiltrometer (Decagon Devices, Pullman, 

WA) to measure a relative water infiltration 

rate to assess the degree of post-fire soil 

water repellency after the Robert Fire, 

Flathead National Forest MT.

Photo by: Andrew Hudak (USDA FS), 2003

Figure 4. Sarah Lewis installs 

a transect line for ground cover 

measurement plots within a paired 

watershed research site after the 

Hayman Fire, Pike and San Isabel 

National Forests CO, 2002.

Photo by: Peter Robichaud 

(USDA FS), 2002. 

Monitoring Erosion and 

Effectiveness of Post-fire 

Rehabilitation Measures
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007 

What is the Value of Rapid 

Response Research?

Rapid Response Research has great 

potential to promote mutual under-­

standing between the land manage-­

ment and science communities. Like 

many other natural resources-related 

research efforts, scientists doing Rapid 

Response Research have a responsi-­

bility to provide land managers with 

defensible information and useful 

tools that expedite and strengthen 

fire management. There is a critical 

need to evaluate the effectiveness of 

management actions to reduce the 

potential for severe wildfire, as well as 

to mitigate fire behavior and post-fire 

effects on human, floral, and faunal 

populations. In order to do this, sci-­

entists must understand the logistical 

and temporal constraints and sociopolitical environment in which man-­

agers make most of their decisions. 

One of the primary goals of Rapid 

Response Research on wildland fires 

is to facilitate interpretation and utility 

of research results to land managers 

making challenging, timely decisions. 

Researchers learn from observing 

fires first-hand and becoming more 

aware of management context and the 

decision-making process. 

Rapid Response Research can assist 

with model calibration, provide accu-­

racy assessments for many commonly 

used predictive models, and increase 

user confidence in these tools. This 

research allows scientists to collect 

real-time measurements and observa-­

tions that are normally modeled or re-­

constructed. However, these models are 

central to predictions for tactics during 

wildfires, and for designing successful 

fuel treatments around communities or 

elsewhere. Rapid Response Research 

provides a venue for scientists to obtain 

information and knowledge that is not 

otherwise available.

Figure 8. Fred Way (left), and Colin Hardy (right), 

discuss the Rapid Response Research plan on the 

Dragon Complex Wildland Fire Use Incident, North 

Rim of the Grand Canyon, AZ.

Photo by: Sharon Hood (USDA FS), 2005.

Figure 7. Patrick Freeborn installs and operates 

mid- and short-wave thermal infrared cameras 

to monitor radiant heat flux and temperatures 

within the Rapid Response Research plots on 

the Dragon Complex Wildland Fire Use Incident, 

North Rim of the Grand Canyon, AZ.

Photo by: Colin Hardy 

(USDA FS), 2005.

Figure 6. Ed Mathews serves as an IMT 

research liaison to ensure that rapid response 

research is conducted safely and efficiently on the 

Cooney Ridge Fire, near Missoula, MT.

Photo by: Andrew Hudak (USDA FS), 2003.

The 2003 fire season in Montana brought many opportunities for several 

newly-funded Rapid Response Research projects. Teams led by researchers 

Andrew Hudak and Colin Hardy from the Rocky Mountain Research Station 

and Phil Riggan from the Pacific Southwest Research Station collaborated with 

faculty from the University of Montana and the University of Idaho to explore 

alternative image acquisition and analysis methods for remote sensing of burn 

severity on the 2003 Cooney Ridge Fire, MT. Mutual research objectives were 

to improve (1) the predictive capabilities for fire risk, (2) the real-time assessment of fire behavior, (3) the post-fire mapping and description of fire effects, and 

(4) the strategic effectiveness of post-fire rehabilitation efforts. Under the supervision of Ed Mathews, the research team’s IMT liaison, small crews of research technicians were sent into areas before they burned to collect pre-fire measurements of 

soil and vegetation condition and to install fire-proofed video systems and instrumentation for measuring heat flux, fire behavior, and local weather. Instruments 

autonomously recorded or reported observations to field personnel working in 

a safe zone outside the fire perimeter. As fires burned through these field sites, 

a ground-based thermal infrared radiometer measured radiant heat flux emitted 

from points within or near the sample sites. Additionally, the multi-spectral FireMapperTM image acquisition system installed on the Pacific Southwest Research 

Station Airborne Sciences Aircraft collected multiple images of the sample site at 

4-minute time steps (Riggan and Hoffman 2003, Riggan and others 2003). These 

missions were planned, executed, and monitored in full compliance with local/area 

incident aviation safety protocols that included pilot briefings, coordination with 

air attack, and post-mission debriefings. This technology produced multi-band 

(visible and thermal) 

images that were used to 

remotely determine the 

heat intensity of the fire. 

These data were merged 

onto a digital topographical map that was then 

assessed by fire managers. As a component of 

this research, a common 

geo­database was assembled to facilitate data 

sharing and analysis. 

More information about 

this project is available 

at http://forestry.umt.

edu/firecenter/.

Thermal Imagery 

and Burn Severity 
 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

Furthermore, Rapid Response Re-­

search can provide data to test new 

equipment. Information from the DMM 

600 duff moisture meter (Campbell 

Scientific, Logan, UT), for example, 

adds a new level of accuracy to predic-­

tions of duff consumption and smoke 

emissions (Robichaud and others 2004). 

Such equipment can also be used to 

determine the best and safest time for 

a prescribed burn.

Results and recommendations from 

Rapid Response Research projects are 

being shared with many different us-­

ers. Roger Ottmar has been conducting 

Rapid Response Research for most of 

his career as a research forester with 

the Pacific Northwest Research Sta-­

tion. In the early 1990s, Ottmar’s Rapid 

Response Research involved attaching 

instruments to hotshot crew members 

as part of a smoke exposure study. 

This ongoing research has provided 

important information about smoke 

emissions critical for both short- and 

long-term firefighter safety and health. 

Bret Butler’s and Jack Cohen’s Rapid 

Response Research efforts have pro-­

vided firefighters with valuable infor-­

mation about safety zones (Butler and 

Cohen 1998a, b). A combination of 

trainings, publications, and websites 

provides information on how and why 

safety zones are used in the everyday 

activities on a fire incident. The safety 

zone guidelines are now included in 

the Incident Response Pocket Guide 

carried by every firefighter on wildland 

fire incidents, and are an integral part 

of the new S-390 Introduction to Fire 

Behavior Calculations class.

Post-fire assessment teams may be 

particularly interested in research that 

seeks to develop a rapid yet consistent 

burn severity mapping approach that is 

applicable to different types of imag-­

ery. Several Rapid Response projects 

involve collaboration with the U.S. De-­

partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Remote Sensing Applications Center 

(RSAC) and the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Earth Resources Observa-­

tion and Science (EROS) Data Center. 

RSAC and EROS provide satellite 

imagery and image-derived products 

for managing and monitoring wildland 

fires. RSAC produces Burned Area 

Reflectance Classification (BARC) 

maps for use by post-fire rehabilita-­

tion teams to identify post-fire burn 

severity. Many current measures of burn 

severity are interpreted from satellite 

and airborne imagery, including the 

normalized burn ratio, NBR (Key and 

Benson 2006). These and other indices 

correlate more highly to vegetation 

attributes rather than ground and soil 

attributes because the vegetation oc-­

cludes the ground, especially in a forest 

environment (Patterson and Yool 1998; 

Hudak and others 2004a, b). In addition 

to their intended use, burn severity maps 

may be used to guide other management 

activities such as post-fire timber harvest 

and replanting strategies. Research that 

provides decision-support, such as the 

identification of appropriate spatial and 

spectral resolutions necessary for map-­

ping and mitigation efforts, may help to 

streamline approaches and costs associ-­

ated with post-fire rehabilitation. 

Researchers need to improve internal 

coordination and fully exploit opportu-­

nities to gather many different kinds of 

data on shared research plots. Significant 

cost savings and data quality improve-­

ments have been realized by investing 

in research that uses existing logistical 

field arrangements to optimize data col-­

lection, including plans for data-sharing 

and complementary analyses. 

Emissions, Firefighter Safety, and Fuels 

During the summer of 2004 in Alaska, research teams led by Roger Ottmar and 

David Sandberg of the Pacific Northwest Research Station collaborated with teams 

from the Rocky Mountain Research Stations in Moscow, ID, and Missoula, MT, and 

the University of Idaho, Colorado State University, and Yale University to jointly 

sample and characterize fuels, vegetation, fire consumption, and smoke production 

on the same points before, during, and after they burned. Researchers targeted existing plots and coordinated to establish new plots to increase the efficiency of study 

design and JFSP support. Ground-based sampling and high resolution hyperspectral 

imagery were collected to explore patterning in vegetation and soil burn severity 

at multiple temporal and spatial scales. Airborne hyperspectral imagery has higher 

spectral and spatial resolution than Landsat and may be more appropriate than 

other satellite imagery for mapping burn severity. These data will help to develop 

improved, practical indicators of burn severity that will complement existing indicators such as the Normalized Burn Ratio (Key and Benson 2006) used by BAER teams 

and others. Additionally, this joint effort complements ongoing research to assess 

the black spruce (Picea mariana) and white spruce (Picea glauca) fuel type Alaska 

photo series (Ottmar and Vihnanek 1998); provide calibration (Rorig and others 

2003) for Canadian 

Forest Fire Danger Rating System 

(Turner and Lawson 

1978), National Fire 

Danger Rating System (Deeming and 

others 1978), Consume (Prichard and 

others 2006), and 

recently updated 

fuel models (Scott 

and Burgan 2005); 

and evaluate duff 

consumption elements of predictive 

models(Ottmar and 

Sandberg 2003). 

Successful field operations would not 

have been possible without 

the cooperation of Alaska 

Fire Service, State of Alaska, 

and IMTs who tactically and 

logistically supported this 

Rapid Response Research.

Figure 9. Roger Ottmar is briefing an Alaska 

fire crew on forest floor consumption and smoke 

emissions on the 2004 Chicken Fire in Alaska.

Photo by: Mary Huffman 

(Colorado State University), 2004.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

Challenges __________

The Rapid Response researcher must 

have the desire to pursue research 

objectives in a non-traditional setting, 

and must demonstrate the creativity 

and communication skills required 

to meet the challenges. The effort 

and dollars invested in wildland fire 

management, and concern for safety 

and protection of people and property, 

gives active fire suppression efforts 

greater priority than research. Rapid 

Response researchers face uncertain-­

ties and high costs, and the value of 

the information gained through this re-­

search must outweigh these costs. For 

instance, it is difficult to financially 

justify the support of highly-trained 

field crews that may spend consider-­

able time participating in day-to-day 

research activities while waiting and 

preparing for fires to happen. While 

not entirely unique to Rapid Response 

Research, other challenges include 

logistics and safety, understanding 

and fitting into the fire management 

organization, building relationships 

with managers and other researchers, 

and science delivery. Three specific 

examples are given here, followed by 

nine recommendations for successful 

Rapid Response Research.

1. Logistics and Safety 

Safety is critical. Where fires 

burn intensely and spread rapidly, it 

can be difficult to safely sample in 

advance of the fire front. Once on 

a fire, researchers must have radios 

programmed to incident frequencies 

(and listen to them) to stay informed 

of potential changes in fire behavior 

and other safety hazards. Participation 

by university and nongovernmental 

organizations, even with federal fund-­

ing, can complicate logistics, safety, 

and other requirements. Academics 

and researchers outside of federal 

agencies and the western U.S. have 

found it especially challenging to get 

the necessary training and certification 

Indicators of Burn Severity

Researchers Penelope Morgan and Leigh Lentile of the University of Idaho teamed 

up with Andrew Hudak, Peter Robichaud, Sarah Lewis, and Kevin Ryan of the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station to sample eight fires burning in Montana, California, 

Alaska, and Idaho between 2003 and 2005, and more recently, inWashington in 2006. 

They sought to identify indicators of burn severity that were mappable, interpretable, 

and scalable from the ground to airborne and satellite imagery. Ground-based field 

data and remotely sensed moderate-resolution satellite imagery and high-resolution 

hyperspectral imagery were collected from all eight fires. These data were used to 

map and predict char fraction of the soil surface, the degree to which soils are water 

repellent, tree mortality, and native and non-native vegetation response. Their initial 

findings were that areas burned at high severity were relatively spatially uniform 

compared to the high spatial heterogeneity of fire effects in areas classified as either 

low or moderate burn severity. When their ground data were compared to satellite 

derived indices, such as the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR), they found 

significant correlations between the 

two, indicating the dNBR was effective at differentiating fire effects. The 

high resolution hyperspectral imagery 

allows mapping post-fire ground cover 

and soil conditions at a much finer 

scale (5 m) than is available with Landsat data (30 m) that are used to create 

most post-fire burn severity maps. Initial results suggest that a post-fire map 

derived from airborne hyperspectral 

imagery more accurately represents 

the immediate post-fire conditions than 

a classified burn severity map derived 

from satellite imagery (Robichaud and 

others 2007). These post-fire maps 

can be used by managers to support 

post-fire rehabilitation planning. At the 

present time, using hyperspectral 

imagery to evaluate burned areas 

has great potential, but further 

research is needed to make these 

products available for post-fire 

assessment.

Figure 11. Leigh Lentile collects data on post-fire 

ground cover and vegetation response one year 

after the School Fire, Umatilla National Forest WA.

Photo by: Peter Robichaud (USDA FS), 2006.

Figure 10. Rapid response researchers monitor active fire behavior 

during the Cooney Ridge Fire, near Missoula, MT.

Photo by: Andrew Hudak (USDA FS), 2003
 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

(the interagency “red card”). Enroll-­

ment in trainings is often limited and 

priority is given to firefighters and 

managers. Nevertheless, research-­

ers must persevere through such 

bureaucratic hurdles and meet the 

same physical fitness and fire safety 

standards expected of others working 

within active fire perimeters.

2. Greater Costs and Uncertainties 

There are several additional costs 

that are not widely acknowledged. 

First, there are the direct costs of 

preparing scientific/technical staff for 

work on fires. This includes purchase 

of personal protective equipment 

(PPE); additional training to meet 

fireline “red card” requirements; and 

maintenance, testing, and documenta-­

tion of required fitness levels. Second, 

there are additional expenses incurred 

for having experienced and appropri-­

ately qualified firefighters leading the 

technical crews on fires. This level of 

experience is required to provide for 

adequate safety and to interface with 

fire management teams. Third, there 

are extra expenses from long hours 

and extended tours that are most 

often necessary to conduct research 

on wildland fires under a short timeframe. Fourth, obtaining some types 

of data on wildland fires can be dif-­

ficult, resulting in less data collected 

for a given amount of money than in 

other research where the probability 

of data capture is higher.

Fires are variable and changeable by 

the hour—few other research environ-­

ments are as dynamic. Considerable 

effort may have gone into setting up 

equipment and collecting data on a 

prospective site, a safe distance from 

the active fire front, only to find that 

conditions change. Often the most 

useful fire behavior data on a wildland 

fire is collected out ahead of the active 

front, particularly if the more active 

behavior is targeted. Sometimes, the 

best sites for research are too unsafe at 

a given time and must be abandoned. It 

may be that the most desirable location 

to collect information is on a portion 

of the fire where there is limited ac-­

cess and a high number of firefighting 

resources. Careful coordination will 

be needed to avoid infringement on 

fire suppression activities.

3. Understanding and Fitting into 

the Fire Management Organization 

Decisions to dispatch research 

teams must be made quickly and are 

often based on limited information. 

Research team leaders need to identify 

study sites that can be accessed rea-­

sonably and safely ahead of the fire. 

It can be difficult to get the necessary 

information about the candidate fires 

without speaking with people on the 

fire. Often, local or incident-dedicated 

resources and personnel are unavail-­

able to provide first-hand information 

about an incident, particularly during 

the first days of a fire.

On actively burning fires, research-­

ers are required to obtain permission 

from IMTs to conduct research on the 

fire or even visit the fire. Researchers 

must work with IMTs to determine 

where and how they will work without 

jeopardizing the safety and effective-­

ness of fire management operations. 

Research must integrate the IMTs 

daily shift protocols into every aspect 

of their activities—communications, 

transportation, staging of resources, 

and safety. Coordination with the 

IMT is critical. Air operations must 

be planned, implemented, and moni-­

tored in full compliance with agency 

and incident aviation safety policies 

and procedures. This coordination 

involves not only the IMT, but also 

the local administrative unit as well 

as the appropriate Geographic Area 

Coordinating Center (GACC).

Considerable variation in manage-­

ment’s willingness to incorporate 

Rapid Response Research may 

depend on pre-conceived notions, 

previous experience, and person-­

alities. Differences in philosophy 

and attitudes toward Rapid Response 

Research exist. Type 1 and 2 IMTs are 

usually more traditional and geared 

toward suppression, while FUMTs 

tend to be more open to Rapid Re-­

sponse Research. Dispatch of field 

research technicians and aircraft is 

contingent on IMT acceptance of the 

request to mobilize. Furthermore, 

management strategies may shift con-­

siderably during a large incident due to 

fire behavior and growth and available 

resources. Identifying which manag-­

ers will welcome researchers depends 

on building personal relationships and 

establishing credibility.

If we are to continue conducting 

Rapid Response Research, agencies 

are encouraged to find a way to fund 

and reward researchers and managers 

who overcome these challenges. For 

example, specific requirements for 

conducting Rapid Response Research, 

as well as deliverables produced by 

JFSP-funded projects, are provided 

in announcements for proposals and 

in an electronic database (http://jfsp.

nifc.gov). It is important for funding 

agencies and researchers to recognize 

that Rapid Response Research can 

be expensive and impose additional 

safety considerations, yet produce 

few results. But when Rapid Response 

Research succeeds, the potential ben-­

efits can be high because the research 

opportunity and knowledge gained 

and applied may not otherwise have 

been possible.

Recommendations ___

Researchers must understand the 

fire organizations and their objec-­

tives.Fire management organizations 

adhere to a strict code and follow a 

chain of command. Researchers on 

active fires must respect this chain 

of command by attending daily fire 

management meetings and briefings, 

communicating clearly and regularly, 

following the protocols established on 

each fire, checking in with Division 

Supervisors and fire crews working 

near them, and following all safety 

guidelines. Understanding the chain of 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

command and operational procedures 

is important, as researchers must be 

willing to be a self-sufficient part of 

the IMT. Researchers can be formally 

“rostered” on the Incident Action 

Plan (the daily shift plan), possibly 

as a “Monitoring Group.” The work 

done to nurture relationships between 

management and research communi-­

ties outside of the actual fire season 

is equally important for successful 

Rapid Response Research on actively 

burning fires. This includes engaging 

with fire managers through workshops 

and trainings. Remember, the “good 

will” built through 10 years of suc-­

cessful Rapid Response Research can 

be threatened by safety violations and 

poor communication. We make the 

following nine recommendations for 

consideration by any research team.

1. Be aware that the IMT’s primary 

responsibility is to manage the fire 

safely and not to support research.

Researchers must remember that 

they are working in an environment 

that is task driven and oriented toward 

on-the-ground results. The IMT’s 

responsibility is to the line officer 

and the effective management of 

the incident, not to support Rapid 

Response Research. Do not make 

demands on the fire management 

team that compromise their ability 

to do their primary jobs. It is also 

imperative that researchers or their 

liaison contact the local management 

agency before arriving on a fire or 

conducting any post-fire assessments. 

In some instances (for example, the 

National Parks), research permits or 

other special protocols are required.

2. Be prepared when arriving at 

fire camp. Do not depend on the fire 

organization to provide the necessary 

equipment or data.

Researchers must provide their own 

equipment, tools, PPE, and vehicles 

so that they are not dependent on fire 

managers. Approved wildland fire PPE 

must be procured well in advance of fire 

season as it may become scarce as fire 

season approaches. Field teams must 

physically remain together and carry, 

at all times, a handleld radio with the 

appropriate frequencies and possess 

the skills to use it. It is imperative 

that radios and other equipment are 

compatible with those used by fire 

managers. Field teams must carry hand 

tools appropriate for the fuel type and 

topography as determined by the IMT. 

If any GIS data will be needed for 

subsequent analyses, it is advisable to 

bring a portable computer hard drive 

to which data can be transferred, as it 

is much more difficult to obtain such 

data later.

3. Have a current red card and 

demonstrate the knowledge and 

language of safe operations.

All Rapid Response Research team 

members must have their “red card” 

that reflects sufficient current training 

and physical fitness qualifications. 

Additional training in radio use and 

communications, fire safety, and first 

aid is required. Teams should have their 

“red cards” together when they arrive 

on a fire, as these will be “passports” 

to the fire. Although Rapid Response 

Research team members without a 

“red card” may request visitor status 

and the required escort, it is unlikely 

that a single resource boss qualified 

individual will be available and will-­

ing to do this task. Rapid Response 

Research team(s) must have briefings 

both prior to, and following, each daily 

operational period. All aspects of situ-­

ational awareness will be emphasized 

in the pre-shift briefing. The end-ofshift briefing will assess and review 

both safety and operational issues.

4. Develop and follow an operations 

plan.

During the incident, the Incident 

Commander or Fire Use Manager 

must grant permission to conduct 

research on the fire and approve 

all fireline visits. Research liaisons 

must check in regularly and com-­

municate with IMTs to determine 

where and how teams can conduct 

research without jeopardizing safety 

and effectiveness of fire management 

operations. Bring a one-page syn-­

opsis (in layman’s term) of project 

goals and objectives—­explain why 

this particular fire was chosen for 

research, and potential benefit for 

managers.

Provide a copy of your operations 

plan to fire managers upon arrival at 

a fire. Make sure it includes contact 

information and qualifications for all 

crew members. In particular, the safety 

officer on the fire management team 

will want to see that safety protocols 

including “Lookouts, Communica-­

tions, Escape Routes, and Safety 

Zones (LCES)” are being followed.

5. Use a liaison.

Many research teams have used a 

liaison to bridge the communication 

gap between the research and fire 

management teams. An effective li-­

aison helps research teams fit into the 

fire management system and allows 

research team leaders to focus on 

ongoing and time-sensitive research 

with full confidence that the opera-­

tions side is under control. The liaison 

should attend daily briefings and be 

responsible for fireline oversight and 

safety of the field team. The liaison 

should have local fire experience 

and know the language, routine, and 

objectives of fire management teams. 

For example, in Alaska, an Alaska 

Fire Service smoke jumper acted as 

a liaison to help coordinate fire ac-­

tivities and on-the-ground research 

logistics with Incident Commanders 

and support teams. Liaisons help to 

build trust. It is difficult to find a good 

liaison possessing hard-earned and 

invaluable credentials. Because of the 

difficulty in finding a good liaison, it 

is imperative to start searching well in 

advance of fire season. Fire managers 

have suggested that individuals who 

have recently retired from fire man-­

agement or who have experience as a 

safety officer on fires would function 

effectively as IMT research liaisons.
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007

6. Build relationships.

Effectiveness depends on com-­

municating early and often with fire 

managers. Careful pre-work before the 

fire season and coordination with the 

local land management unit is essen-­

tial. A good pre-season objective is to 

attend fire management meetings and 

talk to the IMTs. Discuss objectives 

and operation plans, ask for advice, 

and use the input to revise protocols 

and increase feasibility. Researchers 

must seek advice and be open without 

demanding support, resources, and fire 

manager time. Researchers are likely 

to be more accepted when they attend 

meetings, briefings, and live in the fire 

camp where (1) firefighters assemble 

for mobilization to the firelines, (2) 

operational plans are made, and (3) 

information among crews and indi-­

viduals is exchanged. One of the most 

powerful ways to build relationships is 

to repeatedly help fire managers solve 

practical problems, often through ac-­

tive participation in field reviews and 

training, but also informally. Address 

concerns and questions from the fire 

managers at all levels.

7. Share what was learned.

Rapid Response Research can 

provide valuable information, but it 

must be communicated. Technology 

transfer should be synonymous with a 

good communications plan. Brief the 

fire managers, firefighters, and local 

agency administrators on what was 

accomplished prior to leaving—em-­

phasize the practical, immediate value 

of the research. Answer questions. 

Immediate delivery of preliminary 

results can sometimes allow manag-­

ers to alter their recommendations for 

treatments and help them understand 

the purpose of the research. Some 

Rapid Response Research teams pro-­

vide a close-out package for the IMT 

documentation unit and present their 

project and results at IMT evening 

briefings. Seek feedback on how to 

work more effectively with fire man-­

agers. When researchers demonstrate 

the value of research, it becomes easier 

to get out on the next fire. 

8. Work together to take advantage of research opportunities, as 

appropriate.

When researchers collaborate, they 

can more fully exploit opportunities to 

gather many different kinds of data on 

shared research plots. Sharing research 

plots and data will allow multiple us-­

ers to benefit from shared databases 

and will decrease the overall risks 

and costs of conducting the research. 

In 2004, research teams coordinated 

to collect data from the same points 

before, during, and after wildfires in 

Alaska. For the 2003 Montana fires, 

the data, observations, and measure-­

ments collected by several Rapid 

Response Research teams are being 

managed in a shared geodatabase de-­

signed by the University of Montana’s 

National Center for Landscape Fire 

Analysis (http://www.forestry.umt.

edu/firecenter/). All investigators 

can access, edit, and analyze these 

data. Fire managers have also sug-­

gested development of an additional 

database to provide more informa-­

tion about specific Rapid Response 

Research teams. The database could 

include Rapid Response Research 

team rosters, contact information, past 

and current assignments, and areas of 

research expertise. The availability 

of this information could encour-­

age partnerships and sharing among 

researchers and between researchers 

and managers. 

9. Be fluid because flexible is 

entirely too rigid.

Rapid Response team leaders must 

acknowledge that they likely will 

have limited control over where and 

when their crews can sample during 

actively burning fires. Research teams 

that focus on strategic operations and 

pre-season organization are more 

likely to integrate and effectively 

coordinate with fire management 

teams. Remember, there are places 

and times that research teams may 

not be able to sample on the ground 

or from the air.

Conclusions_________

Rapid Response Research provides a 

unique opportunity to pursue questions 

important to managers tasked with in-­

tegrating the best available science in 

their decision-making about fire risk, 

rehabilitation, and restoration. Rapid 

Response Research holds promise 

to link post-fire effects, active-fire 

behavior, and pre-fire conditions. In 

this and other ways, Rapid Response 

Research can build the understanding 

needed to improve fire and fuels man-­

agement. Lessons learned from the 

pioneers of Rapid Response Research 

demonstrate that the potential benefits 

outweigh the costs, and the challenges 

are manageable if researchers and 

managers work effectively together. 

Thus, Rapid Response Research can 

advance science that is relevant and 

immediately useful. 

References __________

Butler, B.; Cohen, J. 1998a. Firefighter 

safety zones: A theoretical model based on 

radiative heating. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 8(2): 73-77. 

Butler, B.; Cohen, J. 1998b. Firefighter safety 

zones: How big is big enough? Fire Manage-­

ment Notes. 58(1): 13-16.

Deeming, J. E.; Brogan, R. E.; Cohen, J. D. 

1978. The national fire-danger rating system. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-39. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 63 p.

Gieryn, T. F. 2000. A space for place in sociol-­

ogy. Annual Review of Sociology. 1-36.

Hudak, A.; Morgan, P.; Stone, C.; Robichaud, P.; 

Jain, T.; Clark, J. 2004a. The relationship 

of field burn severity measures to sat-­

ellite-derived Burned Area Reflectance 

Classification (BARC) maps. American 

Society for Photogrammetry and Remote 

Sensing Annual Conference Proceedings; 

2004 May 23-28; Denver, CO. CD- ROM, 

pp. 96-104.

Hudak, A.; Robichaud, P.; Evans, J.; Clark, J.; 

Lannom, K.; Morgan, P.; Stone, C. 2004b. 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-193. 2007 11

Field validation of Burned Area Reflec-­

tance Classification (BARC) products for 

post fire assessment. Proceedings of the 

Tenth Biennial Forest Service Remote Sens-­

ing Applications Conference; 2004 April 

5-9; Salt Lake City, UT. CD-ROM. 13 p.

Key, C. H.; Benson, N. C. 2006. Landscape 

assessment: sampling and analysis methods. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-164-CD. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Landry, R.; Amara, N. 2001. Climbing the 

ladder of research utilization. Science 

Communication. 22(4): 396-422.

Lentile, L.; Morgan, P.; Hardy, C.; Hudak, A.; 

Means, R.; Ottmar, R.; Robichaud, P.; 

Sutherland, E.; Way, F.; Lewis, S. 2007. 

Lessons learned from rapid response re-­

search on wildland fires. Fire Management 

Today. 67(1): 24-31.

Ottmar, R. D.; Sandberg, D. V. 2003. Predict-­

ing forest floor consumption from wildland 

fire in boreal forests of Alaska—preliminary 

results. In: Galley, K. E. M.; Klinger, R. C.; 

Sugihara, N. G., eds. Proceedings from 

Fire Conference 2000: The First National 

Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and 

Management; 2000 November-December 

27-1; San Diego, CA. Miscellaneous Publi-­

cation No. 13. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research Station: 218-224.

Ottmar, R. D.; Vihnanek, R. E. 1998. Stereo 

photo series for quantifying natural fuels: 

volume II: Black spruce and white spruce 

types in Alaska. PMS-831. NFES-2580. 

Boise, Idaho: National Wildfire Coordi-­

nating Group. National Interagency Fire 

Center. 65 p.

Patterson, M. W.; Yool, S. R. 1998. Map-­

ping fire-induced vegetation mortality 

using Landsat Thematic Mapper data: A 

comparison of linear transformation tech-­

niques. Remote Sensing of Environment. 

65: 132-142.

Prichard, S. J.; Ottmar, R. D.; Anderson, 

G. K. 2006. Consume 3.0 user’s guide. 

Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. [Online]. Avail-­

able: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/re-­

search/smoke/consume/index.shtml [2006,

December 18]

Riggan, P. J.; Hoffman, J. W. 2003.

FireMapperTM: a thermal-imaging radi-­

ometer for wildfire research and opera-­

tions. Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace 

Conference; 2003 March 8-15; Big Sky, 

Montana. Institute of Electrical and Elec-­

tronics Engineers. Paper no. 1522.

Riggan, P. J.; Tissell, R. G.; Hoffman, J. W. 

2003. Application of the FireMapperTM 

thermal-imaging radiometer for fire sup-­

pression. Proceedings of the IEEE Aero-­

space Conference; 2003 March 8-15; Big 

Sky, Montana. Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers. Paper no. 1523.

Robichaud, P. R.; Lewis, S. A.; Laes, D. Y. M.; 

Hudak, A. T.; Kokaly, R. F.; Zamudio, J. A. 

2007. Postfire soil burn severity mapping 

with hyperspectral unmixing. Remote Sens-­

ing of Environment. 108: 467-480.

Robichaud, P. R. 2005. Measurement of postfire hillslope erosion to evaluate and model 

rehabilitation treatment effectiveness and 

recovery. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 14(4): 475-485.

Robichaud, P. R.; Gasvoda, D. S.; Hungerford, 

R. D.; Bilskie, J.; Ashmun, L. E.; Reardon, 

J. 2004. Measuring duff moisture content in 

the field using a portable meter sensitive to 

dielectric permittivity. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 13: 343-353.

Rogers, E. M. 2002. The nature of technol-­

ogy transfer. Science Communication. 23 

(3): 323-341.

Rorig, M. L.; Ferguson, S. A.; Sandberg, D. V. 

2003. Fire weather indexes and fuel condi-­

tion in Alaska. In: Galley, K.E.M.; Klinger, 

R. C.; Sugihara, N. G., eds. Proceedings from 

Fire Conference 2000: The First National 

Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and 

Management; 2000 November-December 

27-1; San Diego, CA. Miscellaneous Publi-­

cation No. 13. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research Station: 202-210.

Scott, J. H.; Burgan, R. E. 2005. Standard fire 

behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set 

for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread 

model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Ag-­

riculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 72 p.

Turner, J. A.; Lawson, B. D. 1978. Weather 

in the Canadian forest fire danger rating 

system: a user guide to national standards 

and practices. Information Report BC-X177. Victoria, BC, Canada: Canadian Forest 

Service, Pacific Forestry Centre. 40 p.

Publishing Services Staff

Managing Editor ·  Lane Eskew

Page Composition & Printing ·  Nancy Chadwick

Editorial Assistant ·  Loa Collins

Contract Editor ·  Kristi Coughlin

Page Composition & Printing ·  Connie Lemos

Distribution ·  Richard Schneider

Online Publications & Graphics ·  Suzy Stephens
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and private 

organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION