Wildfire

Report

Series

January 2022

An Analysis of NFIRS Data for 

Selected Wildfires Including Impacts 

in Wildland Urban Interface Areas

Executive summary

This analysis compares the publicly reported loss metrics (e.g., deaths, injuries, dollar losses and acres burned) 

from media and government sources for 6 named wildfires between 2016 and 2018 with the data reported by 

local fire departments to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The 6 wildfires were selected 

by the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) to reflect a diversity of wildland urban interface (WUI) conditions, land 

management responsibilities, locations, terrains and climates: 

ĵ Chimney Tops 2, Tennessee, 2016.

ĵ Northwest Oklahoma Complex, Oklahoma/Kansas, 2017.

ĵ West Mims, Georgia/Florida, 2017.

ĵ Spring Creek, Colorado, 2018.

ĵ Woolsey, California (Southern), 2018.

ĵ Camp, California (Northern), 2018. 

Overall, the data in the NFIRS for these wildfires significantly understates the publicly reported losses except 

for acres burned, which was often overreported in the NFIRS (Table 1).

Table 1: Loss metrics

Metric Chimney

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West Mims Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp1

Public 

sourcesDeaths 14a 2b 0 0 3c 85d 

Injuries 191e 0 0 0 3f 13g 

Dollar loss ($M) 922.0h 64.6i,j 38.2k 8.2l 2,930.0m 8,470.0n 

Acres burned 17,140o 782,333p 152,515q 108,045r 96,949s 153,336t

ICS-209u,2

Deaths 14 2 0 0 3 85

Civilian injuries 134 5 0 0 0 0

Responder injuries 5 2 8 10 3 3

Acres burned 17,140 779,292 152,515 108,045 96,949 153,336

NFIRS

Deaths 12 0 0 0 0 0

Injuries 3 0 0 0 0 9

Dollar loss ($M) 303.4 1.6 0.3 0.0 7.0 0.8

Acres burned 5,935 1,134,623 1,976,030 0 377,308 608,694

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) data.

a

Jacobs, D. (2017, May 23). Park didn’t heed Gatlinburg firestorm ‘call to action’. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/

local/2016/12/30/park-didnt-heed-gatlinburg-firestorm-call-action/95797456/

b

Associated Press. (2017, March 7). Officials: Harper County woman died while fighting fire on her farm. Fox 25. okcfox.com/news/local/

officials-harper-county-woman-died-while-fighting-fire-on-her-farm c

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

1

Losses from NFIRS-reported incidents immediately preceding and following the ignition and containment dates/times for the Camp 

wildfire are summarized in Appendix A: Incidents in Expanded Time Range.

2Form ICS-209 is the Incident Status Summary report filed daily by the Incident Management Team (IMT) assigned to the wildfire. The 

IMT may consist of federal, state and local fire departments depending on the severity of the incident. ICS-209 forms are filed with the 

Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC) that has jurisdiction over the fire.

National Fire Data Center

16825 S. Seton Ave.

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

usfa.fema.gov
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 2

d

CAL FIRE. (2019, November 15). 2018 Incident Archive — Camp Fire. www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/camp-fire/ e

Jacobs, D. (2017, May 23). Park didn’t heed Gatlinburg firestorm ‘call to action’. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2016/12/30/

park-didnt-heed-gatlinburg-firestorm-call-action/95797456/

f

Holland, E. (2018, November 28). $6 billion in real estate destroyed in Woolsey fire: Report. Patch. patch.com/california/malibu/6-billionreal-estate-destroyed-woolsey-fire-report

g

Sernoffsky, E. (2018, November 15). Five firefighters among dozen-plus patients burned in Camp fire. San Francisco Chronicle. www.

sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Five-firefighters-among-dozen-plus-patients-13396604.php

h

Ahillen, S. (2017, August 9). Tennessee mountain community getting back on its feet after devastating wildfire. Insurance Journal. www.

insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2017/08/09/460619.htm

i

Legislative Division of Post Audit. (2018). Performance audit report: Kansas wildfire management: Evaluating the adequacy of Kansas’ wildfire 

suppression system. State of Kansas. www.kansasforests.org/fire_management/fire_docs/Final_Report.pdf

j

Oklahoma Farm Report. (2017, March 25). Oklahoma State extension says over sixteen million dollars in losses to agriculture as a 

result of Northwest Oklahoma Fire Complex. Radio Oklahoma Network. www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2017/03/01349_

OSUExtensionCostEstimate03252017_112959.php#.YFOQpC2cbOQ

k

Bates, C. (n.d.). Wildfire damage assessment for the West Mims fire. Georgia Forestry Commission. gatrees.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/

Wildfire-Damage-Assessment-for-the-West-Mims-Fire.pdf

l

Craddock, M. (2018, July 26). Property losses in Huerfano County top $8.2 million from Spring fire. World Journal. worldjournalnewspaper.

com/property-losses-in-huerfano-county-top-8-2-million-from-spring-fire/

mNational Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

n

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents o

Badger, S. G. (2017, November, December). Large-loss fires in the United States in 2016. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/

Publications-and-Media/NFPA-Journal/2017/November-December-2017/Features/Large-Loss-Fires-2016

p

Oklahoma Forestry Services. (2017, March 21). Fire situation report — March 21, 2017. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Forestry. www.forestry.ok.gov/fire-situation-report-–-march-21-2017 q

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Southeast Region Fire Division report FY2017. www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/fire-report-2017-508.pdf r

KOAA News5. (2018, September 10). Spring fire now officially 100 percent contained. www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/2018/09/10/

spring-fire-now-officially-100-percent-contained/

s

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

t

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

u

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. SIT/209 Historical [Data set]. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/

historicalSITdata

For 3 of the wildfires — Chimney Tops 2, Woolsey and Camp — over one-quarter of the area affected by the fire 

was WUI. For purposes of this report, WUI areas are defined as census tracts where housing density is greater 

than 1 housing unit per 40 acres and either half the census tract is vegetation or it is within 1.5 miles of a large 

area (over 1,235 acres) that is at least 75% vegetated.3 Notably, the number of fire incidents reported to the NFIRS 

had no relationship to the share of the affected area that was WUI. In other words, wildfires with high WUI shares 

may be expected to have a larger number of NFIRS reports, but this was not the case (Figure 1).

3Stewart, S. I., Radeloff, V. C., Hammer, R. B., & Hawbaker, T. J. (2007, June). Defining the wildland–urban interface. Journal of Forestry, 201-207. 

silvis.forest.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Stewart-et-al-JOF-2007.pdf
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 3

Figure 1: Relationship between WUI and number of NFIRS-reported fires

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Number of NFIRS-reported fires 

within wildfire boundary

Percent of wildfire occurring in WUI areas

Chimney Tops 2

West Mims Spring Creek Camp Woolsey

Northwest Oklahoma Complex

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC and University of Wisconsin-Madison data.

Within the wildfire boundaries of the Chimney Tops 2, Woolsey and Camp fires, most of the NFIRS-reported 

incidents were from within WUI areas (Table 2). This reinforces the principle that extra attention should be 

placed on planning for wildfires in WUI areas. However, in the Woolsey and Camp fires, far more incidents were 

reported to NFIRS from outside the wildfire boundary. Some of these incidents may have actually occurred within 

the wildfire boundary but lacked precise address information for accurate geocoding. Others — particularly 

emergency medical services (EMS) and other incidents — may have been service calls related to the wildfire. 

Table 2: NFIRS incidents in WUI areas and overall for selected wildfires

Incident 

type

Chimney Tops 2a Woolsey Camp

In WUI Within 

boundary

All 

incidents In WUI Within boundary

All 

incidents In WUI Within boundary

All 

incidents

Fire 1,700 1,708 2,076 12 14 128 17 18 67

EMS 3 3 183 75 87 989 11 13 478

Other 26 35 213 97 112 784 21 21 271

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC and University of Wisconsin-Madison data.

a

For the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire, 1,607 incidents were geocoded within WUI areas based on their ZIP codes. More accurate location 

information may have placed these incidents in other locations.

This analysis compares how each of the wildfires was reported by local fire departments in the NFIRS. Each 

wildfire is reported quite differently:

ĵ Chimney Tops 2: 98% of the NFIRS incidents from within the fire boundary were fires, and nearly all of these 

were exposure fires from a natural vegetation fire. There were nearly 2,500 NFIRS reports for this wildfire 

from over 50 different fire departments. Most of the exposure fire reports were identical except for the 

amount of property loss.

ĵ Northwest Oklahoma Complex: Similar to Chimney Tops 2, 96% of the NFIRS incidents from within the fire boundary 

were fire incidents, and this wildfire also included a significant number of exposure reports. While there were 

fewer reports than Chimney Tops 2 overall (330 total) from a similar number of fire departments, they did not 

complete the optional fields in the Fire module to the same degree. Also, “property loss” was frequently left blank.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 4

ĵ West Mims: Most of the fire boundary was within the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) Service. As such, there were only 2 NFIRS reports for this fire 

from within the fire boundary. Outside the fire boundary, the Fire module was used by local fire departments 

to report additional information about a number of fires despite the fact that a majority of those fires were 

natural vegetation fires where the Wildland Fire module could have been used.

ĵ Spring Creek: The Spring Creek fire had the fewest NFIRS reports among the 6 wildfires. Portions of this fire 

occurred in areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which does not contribute data to 

the NFIRS. It also appears that a portion of this fire fell within the jurisdiction of a nonreporting local fire 

department, where most of the damaged and destroyed structures were located. In addition, all the fires that 

were reported to the NFIRS for the Spring Creek wildfire used the Wildland Fire module.

ĵ Woolsey: The primary responsibility for combating fires in California is divided between federal, state and 

local authorities based on geographic area. A significant portion of the area affected by this wildfire (including 

WUI areas) was outside local direct protection areas. Only 7% of the NFIRS incidents recorded for the Woolsey 

fire were fires, including 1 natural vegetation fire where 616 buildings were involved. Only 44 structure or 

mobile property used as fixed structure fires were reported in NFIRS. The majority of incidents for the 

Woolsey fire in NFIRS were EMS, Good Intent and Service Calls, including 248 incidents that were canceled 

en route.

ĵ Camp: Like the Woolsey fire, much of the affected area was outside the local direct protection area, including 

large WUI areas. One-third of the NFIRS incidents from within the wildfire boundary were fires, with a 

significant number of EMS and Service Call incidents. Public reports state that 85 lives were lost in the Camp 

fire, and that nearly 19,000 structures were damaged or destroyed. There are only 8 NFIRS reports for fires 

in structures or mobile property used as fixed structures associated with the Camp fire, and only 2 of those 

occurred within the wildfire boundary. No NFIRS reports list any fatalities.

Based on this analysis, it is recommended that the USFA provide clear guidance to local fire departments 

regarding how to report incidents that are related to wildfires. With the current NFIRS form, it appears 

that there are 2 options listed below. Neither option, however, adequately addresses the challenges of 

multijurisdictional response and data from NFIRS nonreporters.

ĵ Using the Wildland Fire module, a department can report the wildfire as a natural vegetation fire and indicate 

how many buildings were involved in the fire. It can report property and contents losses as well as deaths 

and injuries in the Basic Incident module. It can specify location information using the U.S. National Grid. This 

approach, however, cannot capture vehicle, nonbuilding structure or mobile property used as fixed structure 

fires, and it does not capture any granular detail about those fires.

ĵ Using the Fire and Structure Fire modules, a department may report a natural vegetation fire and exposure 

fires for each structure or vehicle that is damaged by the wildfire. This approach allows local departments 

to capture detailed information by completing an NFIRS report for each instance of damage. However, this 

is a considerable amount of data to collect and enter. It also strains the understanding of NFIRS as a system 

used to record information about incidents to which a fire department responded. If a department was able 

to respond to the natural vegetation fire but was unable to make any effort to combat exposure fires, it is 

unclear whether the department “responded” to the exposure fires or not.

USFA should consider the data it wants to collect regarding wildfires and determine which of the 

approaches above comes closest to its goals. 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 5

Recommendations include:

ĵ Define a new NFIRS form that captures the most salient details for each property affected by a wildfire (e.g., 

incident type, property use, property and contents loss, location, wildfire perimeter, casualties, and selected 

data elements from the Fire module) as an appendix to the Wildland Fire module (augmenting the Buildings 

Involved field). 

ĵ Consider using the Special Study field as a way to denote which NFIRS incidents are related to named wildfires 

and should encourage the use of the U.S. National Grid as a way of identifying location, regardless of whether 

street address information is available.

This analysis revealed that none of these 6 wildfires were thoroughly reported to the NFIRS. Discrepancies 

between the loss metrics reported by the media and those in NFIRS are significant. While some of this discrepancy 

can be explained by the role of NFIRS nonreporters, there are also issues with the comprehensiveness of 

the NFIRS reports that were submitted. Local fire departments appear to follow different protocols for using 

NFIRS (e.g., reporting exposure fires, choosing between the Fire and Wildland Fire modules, and completing 

optional data elements). USFA guidance on the best practices for collecting wildfire-related data (accompanied, 

if necessary, by changes to the NFIRS itself) could improve how data is captured for future wildfires.

Wildfire comparison

Introduction

This analysis examines 6 notable wildfires from 2016 to 2018 and compares publicly reported loss metrics for each 

one to data reported by responding fire departments in the NFIRS. The goals of the analysis are to assess the 

completeness of NFIRS reporting and to examine variations in how each of the wildfires was reported in the NFIRS. 

Table 3: Wildfires selected for analysis

Wildfire State(s) Dates

Chimney Tops 2 Tennessee Nov. 23 to Dec. 21, 2016a

Northwest Oklahoma Complex Oklahoma, Kansas March 6 to 21, 2017b

West Mims Georgia, Florida April 6 to June 11, 2017c

Spring Creek Colorado June 27 to Sept. 10, 2018d

Woolsey California (Southern) Nov. 8 to 21, 2018e

Camp California (Northern) Nov. 8 to 25, 2018f

a

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2017). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2016 [Data set]. Incident Number TN-GSP-016062. 

https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

b

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident Number OK-OKS-000529. 

https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

c

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident Number OK-OKS-000529. 

https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

d

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number CO-CTX-001266. 

https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

e

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number CO-CTX-001266. 

https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

f

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number CO-CTX-001266. 

https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

The wildfires selected by the National Fire Data Center (NFDC) for this analysis were chosen to reflect a variety 

of locations, terrains and climates. They were not selected randomly; the findings from this analysis may not be 

representative of wildfires overall.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 6

The objectives of this analysis were to: 

ĵ Develop a method for identifying incidents in the NFIRS that are associated with wildfires.

ĵ Evaluate the completeness of the NFIRS reports for each wildfire.

ĵ Compare the NFIRS reporting for each wildfire to both publicly reported sources and to each other.

ĵ Develop recommendations to improve data collection for wildfires in the NFIRS. 

The wildfires selected for this analysis were generally large wildfires (4 of the 6 consumed more than 100,000 acres, 

1 burned over 95,000 acres, and the remaining wildfire burned approximately 17,000 acres) but were also selected 

for their diversity of WUI composition, land management responsibility, terrain and geographic location.

ĵ A large proportion of the area affected by 3 wildfires (Chimney Tops 2, Woolsey and Camp) was WUI; the WUI 

proportion of the other 3 fires (Northwest Oklahoma Complex, West Mims and Spring Creek) was much smaller. 

ĵ 2 of the fires (Chimney Tops 2 and West Mims) occurred predominantly in lands maintained by the federal 

government. For 3 others (Spring Creek, Woolsey and Camp), approximately one-fifth of the fire occurred on 

federal land, and no part of the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire occurred on federal land. One-third of 

the Woolsey fire occurred on state or local (city/county) land (Table 4). 

ĵ 4 of the wildfires occurred in mountainous areas (Chimney Tops 2, Spring Creek, Woolsey and Camp), while the 

Northwest Oklahoma Complex fire occurred in grasslands and the West Mims fire occurred in the Okefenokee Swamp.

ĵ 3 of the fires (Chimney Tops 2, Northwest Oklahoma Complex4 and West Mims) occurred in the Southern Area 

Coordination Center region, while each of the others was the only fire examined within its region (Spring Creek: 

Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center; Woolsey: Southern California Geographic Coordination Center; Camp: 

Northern California Geographic Coordination Center).

Table 4: Land management for selected wildfires

Wildfire Federal State Local 

(city/county) Private Total

Chimney Tops 2 63% 37% 100%

Northwest Oklahoma Complex 4% 96% 100%

West Mims 78% 1% 21% 100%

Spring Creek 20% 4% 76% 100%

Woolsey 21% 17% 16% 46% 100%

Camp 23% 2% 74% 100%

Sources: USFA analysis of NIFC data; Wildland Fire Decision Support System. (2020). Boundaries/responsible agency (protection) [Data set]. wfdss.usgs.gov/wfdss/

WFDSS_Data_Downloads.shtml

The NFIRS-reported losses are much lower than publicly reported losses for all 6 of the wildfires in this analysis, with 

some limited exceptions (Table 5). The number of NFIRS-reported deaths in the Chimney Tops 2 fire was 12, compared 

to 14 in public and ICS-2095 reporting; 2 of those 14 deaths occurred during the evacuation of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, 

and may not have been related to a specific NFIRS incident. Also, acres burned is often overestimated in NFIRS, likely 

due to multiple reports of the entire wildfire.

The Form ICS-209 reports for these wildfires are most likely the primary source for the media-reported loss metrics, 

and the 2 data sets are very similar. This information, collected by the IMT, is generally released to the media daily 

during a wildfire incident. Form ICS-209 does not record any information about dollar losses.

4A portion of the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire affected Kansas, which is in the Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center region.

5Form ICS-209 is the Incident Status Summary report filed daily by the IMT assigned to the wildfire. The IMT may consist of federal, state and 

local fire departments depending on the severity of the incident. ICS-209 forms are filed with the GACC that has jurisdiction over the fire.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 7

Taken as a group, the NFIRS-reported figures represent 11.5% of the publicly reported deaths, 5.8% of the publicly 

reported injuries and 2.5% of the publicly reported dollar losses for these 6 wildfires. Conversely, the NFIRS-reported 

figure for acres burned is 313% of the official total for these 6 wildfires.

Of the 6 wildfires, the fire departments that fought the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire submitted the most reports to the 

NFIRS with a total of 2,472 reports. There are 1,901 reports associated with the Woolsey fire in the NFIRS, though less 

than 7% of them are for fires. Slightly over 8% of the 816 NFIRS reports for the Camp fire were for fires. The NFIRS 

contains a smaller number of reports for the Northwest Oklahoma Complex, West Mims and Spring Creek fires.

Table 5: Loss metrics for selected wildfires

Metric Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West Mims Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp6

Public sources

Deaths 14a 2b 0 0 3c 85d

Injuries 191e 0 0 0 3f 13g

Dollar loss ($M) 922.0h 64.6i,j 38.2k 8.2l 2,930.0m 8,470.0n

Destroyed/damaged structures 2,460o 140p 4q 140r 2,007s 18,793t

Acres burned 17,140u 782,333v 152,515w 108,045x 96,949y 153,336z

ICS-209aa 

Civilian deaths 14 2 0 0 3 85

Civilian injuries 134 5 0 0 0 0

Responder injuries 5 2 8 10 3 3

Structures damaged 249 23 0 119 364 727

Structures destroyed 2,066 151 4 225 1,643 18,804

Acres burned 17,140 779,292 152,515 108,045 96,949 153,336

Estimated suppression cost ($M) 8.3 3.2 45.5 32.0 56.9 102.8

NFIRS

Civilian deaths 12 0 0 0 0 0

Civilian injuries 3 0 0 0 0 0

Responder injuries 0 0 0 0 0 9

Dollar loss ($M) 303.4 1.6 0.3 0.0 7.0 0.8

Imputed dollar loss ($M)7 317.5 6.2 0.5 0.0 6.5 0.9

Fires 2,076 239 58 11 128 67

Other incidents 396 91 89 15 1,773 749

Buildings involved 0 147 0 0 616 0

Buildings threatened 0 0 0 0 0 3

Acres burned 5,935 1,134,623 1,976,030 0 377,308 608,694

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

a

Jacobs, D. (2017, May 23). Park didn’t heed Gatlinburg firestorm ‘call to action’. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2016/12/30/

park-didnt-heed-gatlinburg-firestorm-call-action/95797456/

b

Associated Press. (2017, March 7). Officials: Harper County woman died while fighting fire on her farm. Fox 25. okcfox.com/news/local/officialsharper-county-woman-died-while-fighting-fire-on-her-farm

6Losses from NFIRS-reported incidents immediately preceding and following the ignition and containment dates/times for the Camp wildfire 

are summarized in Appendix A.

7Imputed dollar loss is calculated by aggregating fire incidents into 282 distinct groups by incident type, structure type, fire spread, how mobile 

property was involved, type of aid and the median home value of the ZIP Code Tabulation Area in which the fire occurred. Median loss (property 

and contents) is calculated for each group. If the reported dollar loss for an incident is blank (or in some cases, zero) the median is substituted 

for the reported value. The reported value is also substituted with the median if aid is given for an incident. (Imputed dollar loss is lower than 

reported dollar loss for the Woolsey fire because an aid-given incident reported total losses of $700,000 for an incident, but this value was 

substituted with the median of $1,000.) This calculation is dependent on the number and types of incidents that are reported in the NFIRS.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 8

c

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/Newsand-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

d

CAL FIRE. (2019, November 15). 2018 Incident Archive — Camp Fire. www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/camp-fire/ e

Jacobs, D. (2017, May 23). Park didn’t heed Gatlinburg firestorm ‘call to action’. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2016/12/30/

park-didnt-heed-gatlinburg-firestorm-call-action/95797456/

f

Holland, E. (2018, November 28). $6 billion in real estate destroyed in Woolsey fire: Report. Patch. patch.com/california/malibu/6-billion-realestate-destroyed-woolsey-fire-report

g

Sernoffsky, E. (2018, November 15). Five firefighters among dozen-plus patients burned in Camp fire. San Francisco Chronicle. www.sfchronicle.

com/california-wildfires/article/Five-firefighters-among-dozen-plus-patients-13396604.php

h

Ahillen, S. (2017, August 9). Tennessee mountain community getting back on its feet after devastating wildfire. Insurance Journal. www.

insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2017/08/09/460619.htm

i

Legislative Division of Post Audit. (2018). Performance audit report: Kansas wildfire management: Evaluating the adequacy of Kansas’ wildfire 

suppression system. State of Kansas. www.kansasforests.org/fire_management/fire_docs/Final_Report.pdf

j

Oklahoma Farm Report. (2017, March 25). Oklahoma State extension says over sixteen million dollars in losses to agriculture as a 

result of Northwest Oklahoma Fire Complex. Radio Oklahoma Network. www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2017/03/01349_

OSUExtensionCostEstimate03252017_112959.php#.YFOQpC2cbOQ

k

Bates, C. (n.d.). Wildfire damage assessment for the West Mims fire. Georgia Forestry Commission. gatrees.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/

Wildfire-Damage-Assessment-for-the-West-Mims-Fire.pdf

l

Craddock, M. (2018, July 26). Property losses in Huerfano County top $8.2 million from Spring fire. World Journal. worldjournalnewspaper.com/

property-losses-in-huerfano-county-top-8-2-million-from-spring-fire/

mNational Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

n

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

o

Knoxville News Sentinel. (2016, December 28). By the numbers: Gatlinburg fire. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/

tennessee/2016/12/28/numbers-gatlinburg-fire/95847766/

p

Morrison, O. (2017, June 16). Damage from historic wildfires more than $80 million. The Wichita Eagle. www.kansas.com/news/state/

article156506309.html

q

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Southeast Region Fire Division Report FY2017. www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/fire-report-2017-508.pdf r

KOAA News5. (2018, September 10). Spring fire now officially 100 percent contained.www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/2018/09/10/

spring-fire-now-officially-100-percent-contained/

s

Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-AfterAction-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf (page 14). t

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/Newsand-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

u

Badger, S. G. (2017, November, December). Large-loss fires in the United States in 2016. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/

Publications-and-Media/NFPA-Journal/2017/November-December-2017/Features/Large-Loss-Fires-2016

v

Oklahoma Forestry Services. (2017, March 21). Fire situation report — March 21, 2017. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. 

www.forestry.ok.gov/fire-situation-report-–-march-21-2017

wU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Southeast Region Fire Division report FY2017. www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/fire-report-2017-508.pdf x

KOAA News5. (2018, September 10). Spring fire now officially 100 percent contained. www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/2018/09/10/

spring-fire-now-officially-100-percent-contained/

y

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

z

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/Newsand-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

aaNational Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2017). SIT/209 Historical [Data set]. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/

historicalSITdata

Findings

A comparison of the loss metrics from public sources, Form ICS-209 and the NFIRS reveals that the NFIRS data for each 

of these wildfires is incomplete, but that some wildfires are more complete than others. Table 6 shows the average 

error between the NFIRS data for each wildfire and public sources and Form ICS-209, respectively.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 9

Table 6: Comparison of public source and ICS-209 data to NFIRS

Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West Mims Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Versus public sources

Deaths 14% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Injuries (civilian and responder) 98% 0% 0% 0% 100% 31%

Dollar loss (imputed) 66% 90% 99% 100% 100% 100%

Acres burned 65% 45% 1196% 100% 289% 297%

Overall error 61% 59% 324% 50% 147% 132%

Versus ICS-209

Deaths 14% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Injuries (civilian and responder) 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 200%

Acres burned 65% 46% 1196% 100% 289% 297%

Overall error 59% 82% 432% 67% 163% 199%

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Error is calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the NFIRS data for deaths, injuries (civilian and 

responder), dollar loss (imputed dollar loss for NFIRS; omitted for ICS-209) and acres burned as a percentage of the 

value from public sources or Form ICS-209, respectively. The individual errors are weighted equally to compute an 

average error score for each wildfire and source. A lower score indicates that there is a smaller difference between 

the NFIRS data and the source to which it is compared.

ĵ Chimney Tops 2 was the best-reported wildfire with respect to deaths excluding fires in which no deaths occurred 

(West Mims and Spring Creek). 

ĵ Differences between the public sources and Form ICS-209 for these fires complicates interpretation of the error 

rates for injuries; the ICS-209 forms track injuries to responders closely, but it is not clear that these figures are 

included in public media reports. 3 fires had a 0% error rate compared to public sources because no injuries were 

reported in either NFIRS or by the media, but the ICS-209 forms for these fires recorded responder injuries that 

were not recorded by the NFIRS. 

ĵ Dollar loss is not tracked in Form ICS-209. Imputed losses for the Chimney Tops 2 fire were closest to the amounts 

reported by the media but were still inaccurate.

ĵ The error for acres burned is large for 2 different reasons: first, for all fires except Chimney Tops 2 and Spring 

Creek, there were multiple NFIRS reports that included the entire acreage, resulting in higher totals than the 

actual value. Second, NFIRS reports for Chimney Tops 2 underreported acres burned, and no NFIRS reports for 

Spring Creek reported any acres burned.

Overall, the Chimney Tops 2, Northwest Oklahoma Complex and Spring Creek fires had values in the NFIRS that 

were “closest” to the values in public sources and Form ICS-209. These fires do not seem to share characteristics 

that might explain why their NFIRS reporting was more accurate than that for other fires. The Chimney Tops 2 fire’s 

affected area included a large share of WUI, but so did the Woolsey and Camp fires. Chimney Tops 2 and Northwest 

Oklahoma Complex both occurred in the Southern Area Coordination Center region, which may have influenced 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 10

reporting behavior, but so did the West Mims fire. In addition, there were fewer NFIRS reports for the Spring Creek 

fire than for any other fire, so the relatively “good” error score for this incident is due more to the fact that there 

were no civilian deaths or injuries associated with this fire, and the error methodology weights those factors equally.

The Chimney Tops 2 and Northwest Oklahoma Complex fires stand out particularly due to the number of NFIRS 

reports submitted by the local departments that participated in suppression activities. The lower error for these fires 

may be more attributable to local norms and expectations of fire data collection than to other factors. At the same 

time, many reports submitted for these fires did not complete optional fields, and the values reported for many fields 

were the same for nearly all reported incidents.

Factors in NFIRS reporting

Many factors could be responsible for the differences in how these wildfires were reported in the NFIRS, as listed 

below. Additional research including interviews with local fire departments would be required to determine the role 

each factor played in how each wildfire was reported.

ĵ Federal and state agencies that fight wildfires do not report to the NFIRS, which may account for some missing 

data. Most of the wildfires in this analysis involved federal land, and federal agencies played a role in coordinating 

response for all of them. Loss metrics reported using Form ICS-209 are noted separately in Table 5.

ĵ Because NFIRS is a voluntary system, some local fire departments do not report their data. For the Spring Creek 

wildfire, at least 1 local fire department that may have been impacted has not reported to the NFIRS since 2015.

ĵ The NFIRS is used to report incidents to which fire departments respond. If a department is unable to respond 

to an incident (which may be common in wildfires), it may not be reported. A department may submit reports 

for exposure fires from a fire to which it responded even if it was unable to respond directly to the exposure 

fires. This may have been the case for the Chimney Tops 2 and Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfires, which 

were the only wildfires in this analysis with exposure fires. Further USFA guidance on proper reporting in these 

cases may be necessary. (Correspondence regarding some fire departments’ reporting practices is summarized 

in Appendix B: Correspondence with Responding Fire Departments.)

ĵ Dispatch systems may be strained by the volume of calls during a wildfire or affected by telecommunication and 

electrical problems caused by a wildfire. This may cause local fire departments to temporarily lose the ability 

to capture records from a wildfire incident. For example, there are relatively few NFIRS reports from within the 

wildfire boundary for the Woolsey and Camp fires, but many more from the 10-kilometer zone surrounding it. 

This could be due to disruptions to automated record-keeping systems as well as other factors. (Correspondence 

regarding some fire departments’ reporting practices is summarized in Appendix B.)

This report begins with a discussion of the analysis methodology and data sources used. It then compares the 6 wildfires, 

first by presenting the differences in land use in the affected areas and then by examining differences in the types of 

incident reported for each wildfire and the quality of data reported to the NFIRS. The report discusses limitations and 

caveats about the analysis, recommendations for collecting data about wildfires, and areas for further study. The report 

concludes with a detailed examination of the available NFIRS data for incidents associated with each wildfire.

Methodology and data sources

The wildfire boundaries were obtained from the NIFC, which compiled final fire perimeters from multiple federal and 

state sources into a single dataset. The data are formatted as shapefiles, which store geographic location information 

as well as attributes about each wildfire such as the name and year of the incident. 

The NFIRS is a collection of data about incidents to which fire departments respond. Submission of data to the NFIRS 

is voluntary, and participating fire departments use a common set of definitions to capture and record information 

about incidents. In each year from 2016 to 2018, over 1,000,000 fires and over 25,000,000 other incident types were 

submitted to the NFIRS. Over 20,000 fire departments submit data to the NFIRS. 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 11

The NFDC prepares an annual Public Data Release (PDR) containing records that have been cleared for release by 

state NFIRS program managers. The PDR consists of multiple files, generally corresponding to the NFIRS modules used 

to record incident data. The Basic Incident file contains data such as the time and date of the incident, the incident 

type, casualty information, and actions taken by the fire department. Other files contain specialized information 

depending on the type of incident. The Fire and Wildland Fire files contain information related to structure, vehicle, 

natural vegetation and other fires, for example. Data used in this analysis comes from the PDR files for 2016-2018.

Incident data from the NFIRS was geocoded by the NFDC using the PROC GEOCODE procedure in SAS. This geocoding 

uses the address or location information reported by the fire department to identify the geographic coordinates of 

the incident. Due to limitations in the quality of address and location information in the NFIRS, not all incidents can 

be geocoded precisely. For instance, some incidents are geocoded to the midpoint of a named road, or to the center 

of a ZIP code. 

To identify those NFIRS incidents that were located within or near a wildfire boundary, the analysis tool R and 

the R package sf were used. The sf package contains functions for geospatial analysis, including the ability to find 

intersections between shapefiles. Additional R packages, including dplyr and data.table, were used to analyze 

incidents. The ggplot2 package was used to generate maps of the wildfires.

This analysis identifies 3 groups of NFIRS incidents based on their location in relation to the wildfire boundary. 

ĵ “Within Boundary” describes NFIRS incidents that were reported within the wildfire perimeter during the period 

of the wildfire. 

ĵ “Within Buffer” describes NFIRS incidents located zero to 10 kilometers outside the wildfire boundary. The purpose 

of the buffer is to identify NFIRS incidents that may have been related to the wildfire but are not located within 

the wildfire boundary due to imprecision in either the wildfire shapefile or in the NFIRS geocoding. 

ĵ “Beyond Buffer” describes NFIRS incidents located 10 to 20 kilometers outside the wildfire boundary that (a) 

lacked address or location information to be precisely geocoded to an address, and (b) were reported by a fire 

department that reported incidents within the wildfire boundary or 10-kilometer buffer.

A wildfire event impacts the operations of all fire departments in the surrounding area, whether they respond directly 

to the wildfire or not. This analysis does not examine the impact of wildfires on nonresponding fire departments, 

but the techniques used to identify wildfire-related incidents in the NFIRS could be extended to explore this topic.

The analysis examines NFIRS incidents where the reported alarm time is later than the beginning of the wildfire and the 

reported last unit cleared or incident controlled time is earlier than the date the wildfire was extinguished or completely 

contained. Some incidents that are included based on the time and location criteria may not have been related to 

wildfires, especially in situations where the wildfire grew slowly or did not reach population centers for several days.

For each wildfire, the associated NFIRS incidents include:

ĵ Fire incidents — all primary incidents (where the NFIRS report does not indicate that the department was giving 

aid), except those that occurred within 5 minutes and 50 meters of another primary incident, which are presumed 

to be duplicate incidents. Exposure fires (fires caused by another fire) are included regardless of whether the 

NFIRS report indicates that aid was given or not.

ĵ Fire incidents — all aid-given incidents where no corresponding primary incident was reported within time and 

distance parameters that differ based on incident type and type of aid. Aid-given incidents from fire departments 

that are from outside the state(s) where the wildfire occurred are only included if the fire department’s home 

state is within 100 kilometers of the wildfire.8

ĵ Nonfire incidents — all incidents are included.

8This rule may exclude “strike teams” that are called in from out of state to provide aid during a wildfire. To date, no standard or formal data 

entry guidance has been provided to NFIRS users on how to report incidents when resources from a department are deployed out of state to 

serve in a response effort. The 100-kilometer rule is intended to prevent aid-given incidents that have imprecise or incorrect geocodes from 

being evaluated when examining NFIRS incident reports to identify unduplicated aid-given incidents. For example, if an aid-given incident from 

a fire department located in Maryland reports a ZIP code as 2115 instead of 21150, the geographic coordinates for the incident will be in Boston, 

Massachusetts, instead of Columbia, Maryland, because the ZIP code is read as ‘02115,’ not ‘21150.’ 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 12

For purposes of this analysis, phrases such as “incidents associated with the wildfire” indicate NFIRS incidents that 

occurred within the geospatial and temporal boundaries for each wildfire as described above, as the NFIRS does not 

provide a way to indicate that an incident report is related to a wildfire.

Public reports of deaths, injuries and other losses were obtained from multiple sources, primarily from media 

websites and state and federal government websites. Sources are noted in footnotes and in the bibliography.

Wildland urban interface

An aspect of the analysis was to examine the impact of WUI areas on wildfires and how they are reported in the NFIRS. 

The affected area for 3 of the wildfires examined in this analysis, Chimney Tops 2, Woolsey and Camp, included a large 

amount of WUI (Table 7). These wildfires also had the highest number of deaths and the highest value of property losses 

in both public media reports and NFIRS, and the most reports in NFIRS. A smaller but still notable portion of the Spring 

Creek fire also affected WUI areas, though this was not reflected in the number of NFIRS reports or in the loss estimates. 

Table 7: Wildfires by land use

Area type Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

WUI

Interface 4.79% 0.06% 0% 0.02% 7.69% 1.90%

Intermix 29.87% 0.08% 0% 7.41% 25.70% 23.91%

Non-WUI 

vegetated

No housing 51.07% 53.04% 95.41% 32.07% 53.33% 45.30%

Very low housing 

density

13.03% 38.81% 3.28% 60.39% 11.52% 27.95%

Nonvegetated 

or agriculture

Low and very 

low housing 

density

1.24% 7.58% 0.01% 0.10% 1.30% 0.34%

Medium and 

high housing 

density

0% 0% 0% 0% 0.10% 0%

Water 0% 0.43% 1.30% 0% 0.35% 0.61%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC and University of Wisconsin-Madison data.

The data used to determine whether an area is WUI or not was obtained from the University of Wisconsin-Madison9

and is based on the 2010 Census (particularly census tract boundaries and housing density) and the 2011 National Land 

Cover Database (vegetation type). Changes in housing density and vegetation may have occurred in the intervening 

years, so the portion of each wildfire that occurred in WUI areas may be different than what is shown in the table. For 

instance, areas of low housing density where development occurred between 2010 and 2016 to 2018 may have actually 

been WUI at the time of the wildfire. Some areas may have experienced sufficient development to reduce the amount 

of vegetation so that they would be considered nonvegetated medium or high housing density areas.

Within the wildfire boundaries of the Chimney Tops 2, Woolsey and Camp fires, most of the NFIRS-reported incidents 

were from within WUI areas (Table 8). This reinforces the principle that extra attention should be placed on planning 

for wildfires in WUI areas. Note that for the Chimney Tops 2 fire, 1,607 fire incidents within the WUI were geocoded to 

a ZIP code; more accurate location information for these incidents may have resulted in different coordinates that may 

not have been within the WUI. Also note that for the Woolsey and Camp fires, a significant portion of NFIRS incidents 

were located outside the wildfire boundary. This may also have been the result of imprecise location information, 

9University of Wisconsin-Madison. (n.d.). Wildland-urban interface (WUI) change 1990-2010: 2010 data, all classes. Silvis Lab: Spatial Analysis For 

Conservation and Sustainability. silvis.forest.wisc.edu/data/wui-change/
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 13

though preparation for wildfires should also anticipate a spike in service calls of all types, particularly near the area 

directly impacted by the fire.

Table 8: NFIRS incidents in WUI areas and overall for selected wildfires

Incident 

type

Chimney Tops 2 Woolsey Camp

In WUI Within 

boundary

All 

incidents

In WUI Within 

boundary

All 

incidents

In WUI Within 

boundary

All 

incidents

Fire 1,700

(82%)

1,708

(82%)

2,076

(100%)

12

(9%)

14

(11%)

128

(100%)

17

(25%)

18

(27%)

67

(100%)

EMS 3 

(2%)

3

(2%)

183

(100%)

75

(8%)

87

(9%)

989

(100%)

11

(2%)

13

(3%)

478

(100%)

Other 26

(12%)

35

(16%)

213

(100%)

97

(12%)

112

(14%)

784

(100%)

21

(8%)

21

(8%)

271

(100%)

Total 1,729

(70%)

1,746

(70%)

2,472

(100%)

184

(10%)

213

11%)

1,901

(100%)

49

(6%)

52

(6%)

816

(100%)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC and University of Wisconsin-Madison data.

Incident type

In the NFIRS, incident type describes the situation encountered by the fire department when they arrived on scene. 

Examining only those incidents that occurred within the wildfire boundary, some distinctions emerge (Table 9).

Nearly all of the incidents reported for the Chimney Tops 2 and Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfires were fires. 

Furthermore, nearly all of these were reported as building fires. These were the only 2 wildfires where any exposure 

fires were reported. For both wildfires, the originating incident was a natural vegetation fire (Incident Type 140 series), 

and most of the structure fires were reported as exposures. 

In the Spring Creek fire, there were only 6 NFIRS reports from within the wildfire boundary, and 4 of these were 

natural vegetation fires. Even outside the wildfire boundary, no structure or vehicle fires were reported. Additionally, 

no values were reported from the Spring Creek fire for the number of buildings involved (Fire and Wildland Fire 

modules) or the number of buildings threatened (Wildland Fire module). However, data from the Costilla County 

Assessor indicates that over 140 homes were damaged or destroyed by the wildfire. It is unclear whether these should 

have been reported as exposure fires by 1 of the departments that submitted NFIRS reports.

In the West Mims fire, only 2 NFIRS reports came from within the wildfire boundary, and neither was for a fire. Most 

of the area affected by the West Mims fire was in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, though the fire did burn 

commercial timberlands adjacent to the refuge. Beyond the wildfire boundary, 61 fires were reported for West Mims, 

including 5 structures, 8 vehicles, 1 rubbish and 47 natural vegetation fires.

Only a small share of the NFIRS incidents from within the Woolsey and Camp wildfire boundaries were for fires. A 

large share of reported incidents was for EMS incidents, Service Calls and Good Intent Calls.

Differences in the number of NFIRS incident reports and the distribution of incident types may be due to many factors, 

including nonreporting fire departments, policies regarding reporting fires to which a department was unable to 

respond, policies regarding reporting exposure fires, and operability of dispatch and record-keeping systems. Additional 

investigation is required to determine how these factors affected the NFIRS reporting for each of these wildfires. 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 14

Table 9: Distribution of general Incident Types by wildfire

Incident 

Type Description Chimney Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of incidents within boundary 1,746 170 2 6 213 52

100 series Fire 98% 96% 0% 67% 7% 35%

200 series Overpressure Rupture, 

Explosion, Overheat (No Fire)

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

300 series Rescue and Emergency 

Medical Service (EMS) 

Incidents

0% 0% 50% 0% 41% 25%

400 series Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6%

500 series Service Call 1% 2% 0% 0% 19% 13%

600 series Good Intent Call 1% 1% 50% 33% 22% 4%

700 series False Alarm and False Call 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 4%

800 series Severe Weather and Natural 

Disaster

0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4%

900 series Special Incident Type 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 10%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Table 10 lists the number of incidents, by Incident Type, for each wildfire. This only includes incidents that were 

reported within the wildfire boundary.

Table 10: Number of incidents, by specific Incident Type, per wildfire

Incident 

Type Description Chimney Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

100 Fire, other 4 1 0 0 3 1

111 Building fire 1,685 136 0 0 3 2

112 Fires in structure other than in a building 0 6 0 0 0 0

113 Cooking fire, confined to container 0 0 0 0 1 0

140 Natural vegetation fire, other 0 1 0 0 0 1

141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 18 1 0 2 4 12

142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 0 8 0 1 2 1

143 Grass fire 0 11 0 1 0 0

150 Outside rubbish fire, other 0 0 0 0 1 0

160 Special outside fire, other 1 0 0 0 0 1

200 Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat, 

other

0 0 0 0 1 0

300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 0 0 0 0 52 1

311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 2 0 0 0 0 2
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 15

Table 10: Number of incidents, by specific Incident Type, per wildfire (continued)

Incident 

Type Description Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with 

injury

1 0 0 0 25 8

322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0 0 1 0 8 1

324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 0 0 0 0 1 1

365 Watercraft rescue 0 0 0 0 1 0

400 Hazardous condition, other 0 0 0 0 0 3

412 Gas leak (natural gas or liquefied petroleum 

gas (LPG))

1 0 0 0 1 0

444 Power line down 0 0 0 0 3 0

445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 0 0 0 0 1 0

500 Service call, other 0 1 0 0 5 0

510 Person in distress, other 1 0 0 0 0 1

520 Water problem, other 0 0 0 0 1 0

531 Smoke or odor removal 0 0 0 0 4 0

541 Animal problem 0 0 0 0 1 0

550 Public service assistance, other 0 0 0 0 9 2

551 Assist police or other governmental agency 3 2 0 0 8 1

553 Public service 1 0 0 0 11 0

554 Assist invalid 0 0 0 0 1 1

571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 6 0 0 0 1 2

600 Good intent call, other 0 0 0 0 14 1

611 Dispatched and canceled en route 1 1 0 0 21 1

622 No incident found on arrival at dispatch 

address

0 0 0 0 1 0

632 Prescribed fire 0 0 1 0 0 0

641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location) 0 0 0 0 4 0

651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 15 0 0 1 4 0

652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be 

smoke

0 0 0 1 0 0

671 Hazmat release investigation with no 

hazmat

0 0 0 0 2 0

700 False alarm or false call, other 0 0 0 0 10 2

711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false 

alarm

0 0 0 0 1 0

712 Direct tie to fire department, malicious 

false alarm

0 0 0 0 1 0

730 System malfunction, other 0 0 0 0 1 0

733 Smoke detector activation due to 

malfunction

0 0 0 0 1 0
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 16

Table 10: Number of incidents, by specific Incident Type, per wildfire (continued)

Incident 

Type

Description Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 0 0 0 0 1 0

740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0 0 0 0 1 0

744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0 0 0 0 1 0

745 Alarm system activation, no fire - 

unintentional

1 0 0 0 0 0

800 Severe weather or natural disaster, other 2 1 0 0 0 2

815 Severe weather or natural disaster standby 1 0 0 0 0 0

900 Special type of incident, other 3 1 0 0 1 5

911 Citizen complaint 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total 1,746 170 2 6 213 52

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Completeness of NFIRS reporting

There are observable differences in how each of these 6 wildfires was reported in the NFIRS. There are differences in 

the numbers and comprehensiveness of NFIRS reports, and in the types of incidents reported. There are differences 

between the sum of loss metrics from NFIRS and estimates from public sources. The following factors may explain 

some of these differences:

ĵ These wildfires occurred at least partly on federal land and/or the response was coordinated through one of the 

GACCs composed of federal and state authorities. These federal and state authorities typically do not report in 

the NFIRS, which may account for missing information.

ĵ Reporting to the NFIRS is voluntary. Some local fire departments involved in wildfire response may not participate 

in the NFIRS, which would create omissions in the data.

ĵ Wildfires, especially in WUI areas, are large-scale events that make real-time information collection very difficult. 

Damage to electrical and telecommunications infrastructure may impact the ability to receive service calls so 

local fire departments may not have a reliable source to examine when recording incidents after the fact.10,11 The 

high volume of calls and the need to focus on evacuation and life safety rather than extinguishment may also 

hamper record-keeping.

ĵ Differences in fire departments’ policies may also be reflected in the NFIRS reporting. Some departments may 

record fires to which they were unable to respond as exposure fires from an incident to which they responded. 

This may be the case for Chimney Tops 2 and the Northwest Oklahoma Complex. Fire departments that responded 

to other wildfires may have different policies. (See Appendix B.)

ĵ A final factor in the completeness of NFIRS reporting may be differences in how the dispatch system is integrated 

with the record-keeping system. In the Woolsey fire, there were 248 incidents that were canceled en route (Incident 

Type 611) — 13% of all NFIRS-reported incidents for that fire. Calls may have been canceled en route for many 

reasons, but it is notable that so many of these incidents were reported to the NFIRS. It suggests that data about 

these calls was captured in real time and did not have to be reconstructed afterward. If a department’s dispatch 

and record-keeping systems are not integrated (or are disrupted by infrastructure failure), it would be unusual 

for calls that are canceled en route to be manually entered after the fact. 

10Lakin, M. (2017, November 22). ‘Like Armageddon’: How the Gatlinburg fire became unstoppable and swarmed a city. Knox News. www.

knoxnews.com/story/news/2017/11/22/gatlinburg-wildfire-one-year-later-911-calls-evacuation-orders-communications-failures/856270001/

11Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-AfterAction-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf (Page 13).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 17

Regardless of the reasons for the differences, one way to assess the completeness of NFIRS reporting for these 

wildfires is to calculate the percentage of data elements that were populated with valid, known values. This metric 

includes required fields, fields that are conditionally required based on values in other fields, and fields that are always 

optional. It also includes fields where the reported value was “None” if that value is a valid response, and fields where 

the reported value was “zero” if that value is a valid response. Note that the Basic module contains a larger share of 

required data elements than the Fire or Wildland Fire modules, which is reflected in the scores. Table 11 contains 

the average score for each wildfire and NFIRS module; detailed scores by module are presented in Table 12 (Basic 

module), Table 14 (Fire module) and Table 15 (Wildland Fire module).

Table 11: Overall completeness of NFIRS reporting

Module Metric Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West Mims Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Basic module No. of reports 2,472 330 147 26 1,901 816

% valid and known 59 57 67 58 64 66

Fire module No. of reports 2,032 169 43 0 82 22

% valid and known 27 24 16 n/a 17 25

Wildland Fire module No. of reports 5 18 0 8 6 4

% valid and known 27 12 n/a 13 8 30

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

The West Mims wildfire had the most complete Basic modules associated with it, but the least complete Fire modules 

and no Wildland Fire modules. The Chimney Tops 2 wildfire had less complete Basic modules than 3 other wildfires 

but had the most complete Fire modules and the second-most complete Wildland Fire modules. Overall, the Camp 

wildfire had the most complete NFIRS reporting by this metric.

However, completeness should also be judged in terms of how well the NFIRS-reported data compares to the publicly 

reported loss metrics for each wildfire. By that measure, none of the 6 wildfires were complete in NFIRS, due to 

NFIRS nonreporters and missing data from NFIRS reporters. Completeness should probably also ignore fields that 

are always required, such as Incident Type. It should also reflect that some NFIRS data elements are required based 

on the value of other fields or the presence or absence of other modules. It is further complicated by the fact that 

some local fire departments use software that prepopulates default values for some fields (e.g., “zero” or “None”) 

which can impact the completeness of their NFIRS reports.

Finally, for examining an incident as complex as a wildfire, focusing on whether the NFIRS submissions are complete 

may obscure the central purpose of collecting this data — is the data useful? Can the data be used to determine 

why certain structures burned and others did not? Can the data be used to determine how the fire departments’ 

response affected the outcome? Is there information that can be used to improve response for the next wildfire? For 

example, in the wildfires where many NFIRS fire incident reports were submitted (Chimney Tops 2 and Northwest 

Oklahoma Complex), many of the values for data elements such as Item First Ignited, Area of Origin and Actions 

Taken are identical for each fire. The homogeneity of the data in NFIRS makes it very challenging to draw conclusions 

about fire behavior and response.

Data quality

In the NFIRS, some fields are required, others are required only under certain conditions, and the remaining are 

optional. For example, Arrival Time is required unless the Incident Type is 611 (canceled en route), and Incident 

Controlled Time is only required if the Wildland Fire module is submitted for the incident. Of particular interest is 

how often optional fields are populated with useful data. The following tables examine the Basic, Fire and Wildland 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 18

Fire modules submitted for the incidents associated with each wildfire. The tables show the percent of reports where 

the data element was completed with a valid response other than Unknown/Undetermined.12,13 

In the Basic module, a large portion of NFIRS reports included values for Actions Taken #2 and #3, which are optional 

fields (Table 12). This was particularly pronounced in the West Mims, Chimney Tops 2 and Spring Creek wildfires. A 

large portion of NFIRS reports also included values for Property and Contents Loss. However, the most common 

value for these fields was 0. Only the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire had more than 20 nonzero values for Property Loss.

Table 12: Basic module; valid and known responses as share of all responses

NFIRS data element Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of reports 2,472 330 147 26 1,901 816

VERSION NFIRS Data Version 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

DEPT_STA Fire Department Station 27.2% 34.8% 76.2% 11.5% 34.7% 98.7%

INC_TYPE Incident Type 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ADD_WILD Address on Wildland Flag 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

AID Aid Given or Received 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ALARM Alarm Date and Time 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ARRIVAL Arrival Date and Time 98.3% 97.3% 91.2% 96.2% 91.6% 99.6%

INC_CONT Incident Controlled Date and 

Time

22.9% 13.6% 32.0% 34.6% 2.5% 3.7%

LU_CLEAR Last Unit Cleared Date and 

Time

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SHIFT Shift 13.7% 27.6% 61.2% 0.0% 37.2% 4.8%

ALARMS Alarms 13.8% 30.9% 27.9% 0.0% 21.7% 3.6%

DISTRICT District 12.5% 29.1% 25.2% 0.0% 15.8% 32.2%

ACT_TAK1 Actions Taken #1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ACT_TAK2 Actions Taken #2 19.3% 3.9% 49.7% 19.2% 5.4% 7.1%

ACT_TAK3 Actions Taken #3 18.4% 1.5% 14.3% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0%

APP_MOD Apparatus/Personnel Module 

Used

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SUP_APP Suppression Apparatus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

EMS_APP EMS Apparatus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

OTH_APP Other Apparatus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SUP_PER Suppression Personnel 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

EMS_PER EMS Personnel 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

OTH_PER Other Personnel 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

12Note: Valid responses other than Unknown/Undetermined may include “None.” Refer to the discussion of each individual wildfire for tables 

showing the most common values for selected data elements. 

13This “usability index” can be used as an indicator to help determine if a data element should be used in analyses. For example, the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Service Annual Survey suppresses estimates from publication if the Total Quality Response Rate is less than 50%. USFA recommends 

considering the usability index when conducting further analyses of these data elements, also considering that the denominator for this ratio 

is all incidents for which the module was submitted (noted as “Number of reports” in Table 12, Table 14 and Table 15) rather than those where 

the data element is required, conditionally required or optional. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Service annual survey methodology: Two types of 

response rates. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sas/technical-documentation/methodology.html#par_textimage_20
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 19

Table 12: Basic module; valid and known responses as share of all responses (continued)

NFIRS data element Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of reports 2,472 330 147 26 1,901 816

RESOU_AID Resources Include Aid 

Received

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

PROP_LOSS Property Loss 87.9% 14.8% 55.8% 50.0% 67.2% 68.9%

CONT_LOSS Contents Loss 6.6% 14.5% 55.8% 50.0% 66.8% 68.9%

PROP_VAL Property Value 6.2% 11.5% 24.5% 30.8% 66.3% 68.3%

CONT_VAL Contents Value 6.2% 11.5% 23.8% 30.8% 66.1% 68.3%

FF_DEATH Fire Service Deaths 99.2% 92.4% 100.0% 84.6% 100.0% 100.0%

OTH_DEATH Other Fire Deaths 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

FF_INJ Fire Service Injuries 99.2% 92.4% 100.0% 84.6% 100.0% 100.0%

OTH_INJ Other Fire Injuries 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

DET_ALERT Detector Alerted Occupants 0.0% 0.0% 22.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1%

HAZ_REL Hazardous Material Released 2.0% 5.2% 8.2% 3.8% 13.6% 67.8%

MIXED_USE Mixed Use 2.0% 0.3% 9.5% 0.0% 0.3% 2.1%

PROP_USE Property Use 97.2% 82.4% 91.2% 84.6% 87.4% 94.9%

CENSUS Census Tract 0.1% 0.0% 35.4% 0.0% 31.9% 0.6%

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

The NFIRS Fire and Structure Fire modules are required for fires in buildings and mobile property used as structures, 

as well as for “other” fires (Incident Types 111, 120-123 and 100). For fires in structures other than buildings (Incident 

Type 112), the Fire module and the Structure Type field from Structure Fire are required. The Fire module is required 

for mobile property and special outdoor fires (Incident Types 130-138 and 161-164). Either the Fire module or the 

Wildland Fire module is required for natural vegetation fires, crop fires and “other” special outdoor fires (Incident 

Types 140-143, 160 and 170-173). The Fire module is optional for fires confined to their objects of origin and outdoor 

rubbish fires (Incident Types 113-118 and 150-155) and for fire incidents where aid is given. The Structure Fire module 

is also optional for incident types where fires are confined to their objects of origin.

Where either the Fire/Structure Fire or Wildland Fire modules could be used, fire departments tended to select the 

Fire module (Table 13). The Northwest Oklahoma Complex and Spring Creek wildfires are the exceptions.

Table 13: Use of Fire and Wildland Fire modules

Required Submitted Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Fire only Fire 1 2 5 0 13 4

Fire and STRUC_TYPE Fire 0 6 0 0 1 0

Fire and Structure Fire Fire 2,016 148 3 0 27 7

Fire or Wildland Fire 13 11 35 0 26 5

Fire or Wildland Wildland 5 16 0 8 4 3

Neither Fire 2 2 0 0 15 6

Neither Wildland 0 2 0 0 2 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 20

Optional data elements in the Fire/Structure Fire modules were unlikely to be populated (Table 14). Since “None” 

is a valid response for some of these fields, the percent of responses containing valid, known values can appear to 

be higher than it actually is. In the West Mims wildfire, 15 incidents reported On Site Materials #1 as “trees, plants, 

flowers” (code 131), and 3 other incidents reported other “non-None” values. However, for the Camp wildfire, 21 of 

22 reports indicated that the On Site Materials #1 was “None.” For the Woolsey wildfire, 41 reports used “None” for 

On Site Materials #1.

Required fields such as Area of Origin, Heat Source, Item First Ignited, Cause of Ignition and Factors Contributing to 

Ignition #1 contained a large number of Unknown/Undetermined values for some wildfires. For the Chimney Tops 2 

and Northwest Oklahoma Complex fires, where these values were more likely to contain values other than Unknown, 

virtually all of the NFIRS reports contain identical information. 

The wildfires where fire departments submitted a higher percentage of NFIRS reports for structure fire incident types 

(Chimney Tops 2 and Northwest Oklahoma Complex) also provided more valid, known values for variables that can 

help in understanding the breadth of the damage caused, namely Structure Type, Stories Above/Below Grade, Total 

Square Footage and Fire Origin.

Table 14: Fire module; valid and known responses as share of all responses

NFIRS data element Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of reports 2,032 169 43 0 82 22

VERSION NFIRS Data Version 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0%

NUM_UNIT Number of Residential Units 99.6% 95.3% 60.5% n/a 72.0% 100.0%

NOT_RES Not Residential Flag 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0%

BLDG_INVOL Number of Buildings Involved 0.6% 5.9% 60.5% n/a 92.7% 90.9%

ACRES_BURN Acres Burned 0.3% 5.3% 46.5% n/a 35.4% 27.3%

LESS_1ACRE Less than one Acre 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0%

ON_SITE_M1 On Site Materials #1 0.8% 7.7% 60.5% n/a 52.4% 100.0%

MAT_STOR1 Material Storage Use #1 0.4% 1.2% 41.9% n/a 0.0% 100.0%

ON_SITE_M2 On Site Materials #2 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

MAT_STOR2 Material Storage Use #2 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

ON_SITE_M3 On Site Materials #3 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

MAT_STOR3 Material Storage Use #3 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

AREA_ORIG Area of Origin 100.0% 95.9% 67.4% n/a 62.2% 68.2%

HEAT_SOURC Heat Source 99.9% 97.6% 37.2% n/a 52.4% 54.5%

FIRST_IGN Item First Ignited 99.3% 8.9% 46.5% n/a 47.6% 63.6%

CONF_ORIG Confined To Origin 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% n/a 3.7% 31.8%

TYPE_MAT Type of Material 0.2% 1.8% 7.0% n/a 34.1% 18.2%

CAUSE_IGN Cause of Ignition 100.0% 99.4% 51.2% n/a 70.7% 77.3%

FACT_IGN_1 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #1

100.0% 97.6% 44.2% n/a 61.0% 63.6%

FACT_IGN_2 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 14.6% 4.5%

HUM_FAC_1 Human Factors #1 0.5% 8.3% 100.0% n/a 98.8% 100.0%

HUM_FAC_2 Human Factors #2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 21

Table 14: Fire module; valid and known responses as share of all responses (continued)

NFIRS data element Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of reports 2,032 169 43 0 82 22

HUM_FAC_3 Human Factors #3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 0.0%

HUM_FAC_4 Human Factors #4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FAC_5 Human Factors #5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FAC_6 Human Factors #6 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FAC_7 Human Factors #7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FAC_8 Human Factors #8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

AGE Age of Person 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

SEX Sex of Person 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

EQUIP_INV Equipment Involved 0.1% 3.6% 14.0% n/a 2.4% 40.9%

SUP_FAC_1 Suppression Factors #1 99.9% 0.6% 9.3% n/a 3.7% 27.3%

SUP_FAC_2 Suppression Factors #2 99.6% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 0.0%

SUP_FAC_3 Suppression Factors #3 99.6% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 0.0%

MOB_INVOL Mobile Property Involved 0.4% 3.6% 20.9% n/a 18.3% 100.0%

MOB_TYPE Mobile Property Type 0.1% 0.6% 11.6% n/a 14.6% 22.7%

MOB_MAKE Mobile Property Make 0.1% 0.6% 11.6% n/a 14.6% 22.7%

MOB_MODEL Mobile Property Model 0.1% 0.6% 7.0% n/a 13.4% 13.6%

MOB_YEAR Mobile Property Year 0.1% 0.6% 7.0% n/a 13.4% 4.5%

MOB_LIC_PL Mobile Property License Plate 0.1% 0.6% 4.7% n/a 9.8% 9.1%

MOB_STATE Mobile Property State 0.1% 0.0% 81.4% n/a 9.8% 9.1%

MOB_VIN_NO Mobile Property VIN Number 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% n/a 8.5% 0.0%

EQ_BRAND Equipment Brand 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 4.5%

EQ_MODEL Equipment Model 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 4.5%

EQ_SER_NO Equipment Serial Number 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 4.5%

EQ_YEAR Equipment Year 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

EQ_POWER Equipment Power 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 14.6% 18.2%

EQ_PORT Equipment Portability 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 14.6% 18.2%

FIRE_SPRD Fire Spread 99.2% 87.0% 7.0% n/a 12.2% 27.3%

STRUC_TYPE Structure Type 99.2% 90.5% 7.0% n/a 12.2% 27.3%

STRUC_STAT Structure Status 99.2% 87.0% 7.0% n/a 12.2% 27.3%

BLDG_ABOVE Building Height: Stories Above 

Grade

99.2% 87.0% 7.0% n/a 12.2% 27.3%

BLDG_BELOW Building Height: Stories Below 

Grade

99.2% 87.0% 7.0% n/a 12.2% 27.3%

BLDG_LGTH Building Length 0.0% 34.3% 4.7% n/a 0.0% 9.1%

BLDG_WIDTH Building Width 0.0% 34.3% 4.7% n/a 0.0% 9.1%

TOT_SQ_FT Total Square Feet 99.2% 52.7% 2.3% n/a 12.2% 18.2%

FIRE_ORIG Fire Origin 99.2% 87.0% 7.0% n/a 12.2% 27.3%
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 22

Table 14: Fire module; valid and known responses as share of all responses (continued)

NFIRS data element Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of reports 2,032 169 43 0 82 22

ST_DAM_MIN Number of Stories with 

Damage: Minor

0.2% 25.4% 7.0% n/a 8.5% 27.3%

ST_DAM_SIG Number of Stories with 

Damage: Significant

0.2% 25.4% 7.0% n/a 8.5% 27.3%

ST_DAM_HVY Number of Stories with 

Damage: Heavy

0.2% 25.4% 7.0% n/a 8.5% 27.3%

ST_DAM_XTR Number of Stories with 

Damage: Extreme

0.2% 25.4% 7.0% n/a 8.5% 27.3%

FLAME_SPRD No Flame Spread/Same As 

First/Unknown

99.2% 90.5% 7.0% n/a 12.2% 27.3%

ITEM_SPRD Item Contributing Most To 

Spread

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 9.1%

MAT_SPRD Type Material Contributing 

Most To Spread

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 9.1%

DETECTOR Detector Presence 0.1% 58.0% 4.7% n/a 6.1% 9.1%

DET_TYPE Detector Type 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 4.9% 4.5%

DET_POWER Detector Power 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 4.9% 4.5%

DET_OPERAT Detector Operation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 2.4% 4.5%

DET_EFFECT Detector Effectiveness 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 4.5%

DET_FAIL Detector Failure Reason 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

AES_PRES AES Presence 0.2% 60.9% 7.0% n/a 11.0% 18.2%

AES_TYPE AES Type 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 0.0%

AES_OPER AES Operation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 0.0%

NO_SPR_OP Number of Sprinklers 

Operating

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.2% 0.0%

AES_FAIL AES Failure Reason 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

There are very few examples of fires reported using the Wildland Fire module (Table 15). Optional fields regarding 

weather conditions were well-populated for Chimney Tops 2, and fields regarding terrain and fire behavior were 

well-populated for the Camp wildfire. Departments that reported for the Northwest Oklahoma Complex and Woolsey 

fires included information about the number of buildings involved. (Number of Buildings Involved was also populated 

for the reports from the Camp fire, but the value in those records is zero.) None of the NFIRS reports provided 

details about property ownership/management. That is a particular challenge given the coordination that takes place 

between local, state and federal authorities when combating a wildfire.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 23

Table 15: Wildland Fire module; valid and known responses as share of all responses

NFIRS data element Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of reports 5 18 0 8 6 4

VERSION NFIRS Data Version 100.0% 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

LATITUDE Latitude 0.0% 27.8% n/a 12.5% 16.7% 25.0%

LONGITUDE Longitude 0.0% 27.8% n/a 12.5% 16.7% 25.0%

TOWNSHIP Township 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NORTH_SOU North/South 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

RANGE Range 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

EAST_WEST East/West 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SECTION Section 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SUBSECTION Subsection 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MERIDIAN Meridian 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

AREA_TYPE Area Type 100.0% 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

FIRE_CAUSE Wildland Fire Cause 100.0% 27.8% n/a 50.0% 0.0% 25.0%

HUM_FACT1 Human Factors Contributing #1 100.0% 94.4% n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

HUM_FACT2 Human Factors Contributing #2 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FACT3 Human Factors Contributing #3 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FACT4 Human Factors Contributing #4 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FACT5 Human Factors Contributing #5 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FACT6 Human Factors Contributing #6 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FACT7 Human Factors Contributing #7 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HUM_FACT8 Human Factors Contributing #8 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

FACT_IGN1 Factors Contributing to 

Ignition #1

100.0% 77.8% n/a 50.0% 33.3% 50.0%

FACT_IGN2 Factors Contributing to 

Ignition #2

0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SUPP_FACT1 Fire Suppression Factors #1 100.0% 0.0% n/a 12.5% 16.7% 100.0%

SUPP_FACT2 Fire Suppression Factors #2 100.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

SUPP_FACT3 Fire Suppression Factors #3 100.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HEAT_SOURC Heat Source 100.0% 61.1% n/a 50.0% 16.7% 25.0%

MOB_PROP Mobile Property Type 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

EQ_INV_IGN Equipment Involved In 

Ignition

0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

NFDRS_ID NFDRS Weather Station ID 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

WEATH_TYPE Weather Type 100.0% 0.0% n/a 25.0% 0.0% 25.0%

WIND_DIR Wind Direction 100.0% 0.0% n/a 37.5% 0.0% 25.0%

WIND_SPEED Wind Speed 100.0% 0.0% n/a 37.5% 0.0% 50.0%

AIR_TEMP Air Temperature 100.0% 0.0% n/a 37.5% 16.7% 50.0%

REL_HUMID Relative Humidity 100.0% 0.0% n/a 12.5% 0.0% 50.0%

FUEL_MOIST Fuel Moisture 0.0% 0.0% n/a 12.5% 0.0% 25.0%
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 24

Table 15: Wildland Fire module; valid and known responses as share of all responses (continued)

NFIRS data element Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West 

Mims

Spring 

Creek Woolsey Camp

Number of reports 5 18 0 8 6 4

DANGR_RATE Fire Danger Rating 100.0% 0.0% n/a 12.5% 0.0% 25.0%

BLDG_INV Number of Buildings Involved 0.0% 27.8% n/a 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

BLDG_THR Number of Buildings 

Threatened

0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

ACRES_BURN Total Acres Burned 100.0% 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CROP_BURN1 Primary Crop Burned 1 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CROP_BURN2 Primary Crop Burned 2 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CROP_BURN3 Primary Crop Burned 3 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

UNDET_BURN Undetermined Acres Burned % 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

TAX_BURN Tax Paying Acres Burned % 0.0% 11.1% n/a 25.0% 0.0% 50.0%

NOTAX_BURN Non-Tax Paying Acres Burned % 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

LOCAL_BURN City, town, village, local Acres 

Burned %

0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

COUTY_BURN County or parish Acres 

Burned %

0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

ST_BURN State or province Acres 

Burned %

0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

FED_BURN Federal Acres Burned % 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

FOREI_BURN Foreign Acres Burned % 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

MILIT_BURN Military Acres Burned % 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

OTHER_BURN Other Acres Burned % 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

PROP_MANAG Property Management 

Ownership

100.0% 0.0% n/a 25.0% 0.0% 25.0%

FED_CODE Federal Agency Code 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NFDRS_FM NFDRS Fuel Model at Origin 0.0% 0.0% n/a 12.5% 0.0% 50.0%

PERSON_FIR Person Responsible for Fire 100.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 16.7% 25.0%

GENDER Gender 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

AGE Age 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

ACTIVITY_W Activity of Person 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HORIZ_DIS Horizontal Distance from ROW 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

TYPE_ROW Type of ROW 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

ELEVATION Elevation 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 75.0%

POS_SLOPE Relative Position on Slope 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

ASPECT Aspect 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

FLAME_LGTH Flame Length 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 75.0%

SPREAD_RAT Rate of Spread 0.0% 11.1% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 75.0%

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 25

Limitations

This analysis compares incidents reported during 6 wildfires to one another and to publicly reported information 

about the fires. These wildfires were selected because they represent a variety of locations, terrains and climates. 

Since the 6 wildfires were not selected randomly, these conclusions may not be applicable to all wildfires.

In addition, the identification of NFIRS incidents for each wildfire is subject to a degree of error. The wildfire 

boundaries used are the final perimeter for each fire, rather than a sequence of perimeters taken over the life of 

the event. The Northwest Oklahoma Complex, Spring Creek, Woolsey and Camp fires grew rapidly and caused the 

most damage on their first day. The Chimney Tops 2 fire grew most rapidly and reached the town of Gatlinburg, 

Tennessee, on its fourth day, and the West Mims fire grew most rapidly beginning 2 weeks after ignition. Some of 

the NFIRS incidents associated with each fire may have occurred before or after the wildfire was active in that area.

This analysis uses geocoded location information provided by the NFDC. The geocoding process returns latitude and 

longitude coordinates and a value indicating the precision of the geocodes (Table 16). Some NFIRS incidents cannot be 

geocoded to an address, so the coordinates that are returned may be the center point of a street or a ZIP code. To capture 

incidents that may have been within the wildfire boundary if not for the imprecision of the location information, a 10- 

kilometer buffer around each wildfire was used. Some incidents that appear to be associated with an event may not be.

Table 16: Precision of geocoding by wildfire

Geocode 

precision

Chimney 

Tops 2

Northwest 

Oklahoma 

Complex

West Mims Spring Creek Woolsey Camp

Address 12% 51% 28% 23% 71% 84%

City 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

City mean 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

Street 8% 6% 42% 8% 14% 2%

ZIP 80% 44% 30% 69% 13% 14%

Total incidents 2,472 330 147 26 1,901 816

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Recommendations14

Federal and state agencies that participate in wildfire response may capture data for their own use that is not 

recorded in the NFIRS. Efforts should be made to coordinate with those agencies to obtain that data so that it 

can be analyzed by the NFDC. For large wildfires, it may be advisable to augment reported data from federal, state 

and local sources with information obtained from public sources. USFA may want to work more closely with the 

NIFC to receive daily ICS-209 reports (including inventories of damaged or destroyed property) and wildfire 

shapefiles for active incidents.

Clear guidance from NFDC to fire departments about reporting data from a wildfire-related incident in NFIRS

would be helpful, since there appears to be variation in the incidents that are reported and the completeness of those 

reports. This guidance could take the form of an NFIRSGram or may involve more direct outreach to fire departments 

(including NFIRS nonreporters) that protect large areas of WUI. The guidance should address topics such as:

ĵ Identifying that an incident is related to a wildfire: NFDC may want to consider using a Special Study field so 

that responding departments can indicate the wildfire that is associated with the incident. This would 

allow NFDC to identify incidents from a specific wildfire without needing to use geospatial/temporal matching. 

Ideally, this data could also be shared in the NFIRS PDR.

14Additional recommendations are provided in Appendix A.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 26

ĵ Choosing between the Fire and Wildland Fire modules, when applicable: Reiterate the guidance that the 

Wildland Fire module should be used for natural vegetation fires that affect a large area. Stress that 

optional variables (weather, terrain, buildings involved or threatened, property management) are important for 

understanding wildfires.

Ý USFA may want to consider requiring the Wildland Fire module for natural vegetation fires rather than 

allowing fire departments to choose between the Fire and Wildland Fire modules.

ĵ Reporting incidents where the fire department was unable to respond: In wildfires, a fire department may not 

be able to respond to each structure fire (or other incident type) and may not even receive a call for an incident. 

Ý For the Chimney Tops 2 and Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfires, it appears that many structure fire 

incidents were reported as exposures from natural vegetation fires, and this data may have been collected 

after the fact. Capturing the data for structures that were damaged is important, but this practice may 

contravene the expectation that the NFIRS is used to capture “every incident (or emergency call) to which the 

department responds” (emphasis added).15

Ý Another option may be to advise fire departments to use the Wildland Fire module to record the natural 

vegetation fire, complete the Buildings Involved and Buildings Threatened fields in that module (among others) 

and record total losses in the Basic Incident module. However, this approach would omit other fire incident 

types such as vehicle fires and would also omit important details about differences in how the fire affected 

different structures, vehicles and outdoor areas.

Ý Future enhancements to the NFIRS might include developing an option to allow local fire departments 

to report wildfires using the Wildland Fire module with supplemental schedules that capture key data 

about each structure, vehicle and outdoor area that is affected.

ĵ Reporting for departments giving aid: Large wildfires often involve support from fire departments from outside 

the local area. These outside fire departments may be the only ones at a scene, prompting the question of whether 

they are actually giving aid. NFDC should clarify how it would like these departments to record their activities 

in NFIRS — either as giving aid or as no aid (under the aid-receiving department’s fire department identification 

(FDID) number, accompanied by a cover assignment report).

ĵ Improving incident location information: Better information for determining the location of an incident would 

improve the quality of analysis. The U.S. National Grid is ideal for locations where an address cannot be determined 

and should be emphasized.

ĵ Reporting losses: Public sources generally reported higher values for casualties and property losses than the NFIRS 

reports for these wildfires. USFA may request that fire departments monitor media sources for consolidated 

reports and update their NFIRS reporting accordingly.

ĵ Encouraging completion of optional data elements: There are many optional fields in the Basic, Fire, Structure 

Fire and Wildland Fire modules that could be used for capturing useful information in wildfires. For instance, the 

Number of Stories with Minor/Significant/Heavy/Extreme Damage fields could be useful in estimating property 

losses, and the fields related to On Site Materials could be useful in estimating contents losses.

Additional guidance and training on reporting wildfires in NFIRS would be helpful but may not address all of 

the data needs presented by a wildfire. Deploying a data collection team from USFA after a wildfire could be very 

helpful. In addition to ensuring that incidents are reported accurately in NFIRS, a data collection team could also 

examine other factors that are important for community risk reduction in WUI areas by collecting data and working 

with local governments. Many of these data are not currently captured in NFIRS.

15U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. (2015). National Fire Incident Reporting System: Complete reference guide. FEMA. https://www.

usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nfirs/NFIRS_Complete_Reference_Guide_2015.pdf (Page 2-2).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 27

ĵ Comprehensive information about structures: Documenting the types of materials used in construction, types of 

structure features (e.g., soffits, eaves, decks), landscape elements (e.g., tree/plant selections, defensible perimeters) 

and other features would be useful for understanding how design/construction/maintenance choices impact a 

structure’s resilience to fire.

ĵ Data about what did not burn: Data about structures that were not damaged or destroyed in a wildfire is useful 

as well. Information about materials, features and landscaping could be used to improve building codes, guide 

reconstruction and carry out future research.

Further study

With geospatial data that show the progression of a wildfire over time, it would be possible to remove false positive 

NFIRS incidents from the data used in this analysis. These geospatial data could be constructed from satellite-based 

fire detection data or assembled from shapefiles. However, the impact of this effort might be limited for 2 reasons. 

ĵ First, for 4 of the selected wildfires, most of the destruction occurred within the first 24 hours of ignition, and for 

a fifth, most of the destruction occurred in an identifiable 4-hour period on the fourth day of the wildfire. Where 

possible, the analysis that follows distinguishes between incidents reported on a key date and incidents reported 

during the remainder of the wildfire event. 

ĵ Second, given the imprecision of incident location information in NFIRS, it would still be necessary to use a buffer 

around the wildfire boundary to identify incidents that may have been caused by the wildfire.

Analysis of selected wildfires

Chimney Tops 2, Tennessee, 2016

The Chimney Tops 2 fire was a human-caused fire16,17 that began on Nov. 23, 2016, in Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park. It grew slowly over the Thanksgiving weekend, then rapidly the following Monday, Nov. 28, propelled by strong 

winds. It reached the town of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, in the late afternoon where it caused extensive damage. The 

wildfire was controlled on Dec. 22, 2016. 

Of the 2,472 NFIRS incidents associated with the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire, 80% provided location information that 

allowed the incident to be geocoded to the center point of a ZIP code; only 12% of incidents could be geocoded to an 

address, and the remaining incidents were geocoded to the center of a named street. While the geocodes are used 

as the basis for determining where the incident occurred relative to the wildfire boundary, the imprecision of those 

geocodes should be considered when examining the wildfire. 

Figure 2 shows the number of acres burned by the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire and the cumulative number of NFIRS fire 

reports submitted over time.18

16National Park Service. (2016, December 22). Great Smoky Mountains: Chimney Tops 2 fire. www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/chimney-tops-2-fire.htm 17Satterfield, J. (2017, July 5). Attorney: Arson charges against teens in fatal Gatlinburg wildfire dropped. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/

news/local/tennessee/gatlinburg/2017/06/30/attorney-arson-charges-against-teens-fatal-gatlinburg-wildfire-dropped/442706001

18Form ICS-209 reports are generally completed once per day; acres burned is recorded as of the time the report is submitted and is not intended 

to depict the real-time progression of the wildfire.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 28

Figure 2: Chimney Tops 2 cumulative acres burned and fires reported by date

0

11/25/1611/27/1611/29/16

12/1/1612/3/1612/5/1612/7/1612/9/16

12/11/1612/13/1612/15/1612/17/1612/19/1612/21/16

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

20,000

18,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Acres burned

Cumulative fires reported

Acres burned Cumulative fires reported

Chimney Tops 2, 2016

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data; National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2017). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2016 [Data set]. Incident Number 

TN-GSP-016062. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

Figure 3 is a map of the wildfire showing the fires and other incident types reported in NFIRS. The yellow and orange 

shading reflects WUI areas, representing nearly one-third of the wildfire area. The northern portion of the largest 

wildfire polygon contains Gatlinburg, Tennessee, and the smaller fire polygons show smaller fires that mainly affected 

WUI areas. Red and blue points that appear more opaque in the map indicate that multiple incidents were geocoded 

to that location.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 29

 Figure 3: Chimney Tops 2 wildfire

35.55°N

35.6°N

35.65°N

35.7°N

35.75°N

35.8°N

35.85°N

83.7°W 83.6°W 83.5°W 83.4°W

Longitude

Latitude

Lines and Points

Fire Boundary

10 km Buffer

Federal Lands

State Line

County Line

NFIRS Fire

NFIRS Other

WUI Classification

WUI Interface: 4.79%

WUI Intermix: 29.87%

Non−Vegetated 

Low and very low housing density: 1.24%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

No housing: 51.07%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

Very low housing density: 13.03%

Chimney Tops 2, 2016

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S. Census and BLM data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 30

Losses

Table 17 summarizes the losses from the Chimney Tops 2 fire from public sources, incident status summary reports 

(Form ICS-209) filed with the Southern Area Coordination Center, and from the NFIRS incidents that were determined 

to be associated with this event.

Table 17: Chimney Tops 2 loss metrics

Metric Public 

sources

ICS-209a

NFIRS 

Within 

Boundary

NFIRS 

Within 

Buffer

NFIRS 

Beyond 

Buffer

Deaths 14b 14 12 0 0

Injuries 191c 139 3 0 0

Dollar losses $922 Md n/a $270 M $33 M $ 0

Imputed dollar losses n/a n/a $278 M $39 M $ 0

Acres burned 17,140e 17,140 2,543 3,392 0

Structures damaged or destroyed 2,460f 2,315 n/a n/a n/a

Fire incidents n/a n/a 1,708 366 2

Nonfire incidents n/a n/a 38 331 27

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

a

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2017). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2016 [Data set]. Incident Number TN-GSP-016062. https://

famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

b

Jacobs, D. (2017, May 23). Park didn’t heed Gatlinburg firestorm ‘call to action’. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2016/12/30/

park-didnt-heed-gatlinburg-firestorm-call-action/95797456/

c

Jacobs, D. (2017, May 23). Park didn’t heed Gatlinburg firestorm ‘call to action’. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2016/12/30/

park-didnt-heed-gatlinburg-firestorm-call-action/95797456/

d

Ahillen, S. (2017, August 9). Tennessee mountain community getting back on its feet after devastating wildfire. Insurance Journal. www.

insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2017/08/09/460619.htm

e

Badger, S. G. (2017, November, December). Large-Loss Fires in the United States in 2016. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/

Publications-and-Media/NFPA-Journal/2017/November-December-2017/Features/Large-Loss-Fires-2016

f

Badger, S. G. (2017, November, December). Large-Loss Fires in the United States in 2016. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/

Publications-and-Media/NFPA-Journal/2017/November-December-2017/Features/Large-Loss-Fires-2016

The 14 deaths reported by public sources include 1 death in a vehicle accident and 1 death from a heart attack during 

evacuation. The 12 deaths reported in the NFIRS (in both the Basic Incident and Civilian Casualty modules) occurred 

in incidents where the incident type was a fire. Although the fire service may have been involved in the response 

to the remaining 2 deaths, there are no EMS module reports associated with the Chimney Tops 2 fire, so it is not 

possible to determine whether these deaths were associated with an EMS incident type, a different incident type or 

were not reported by the fire service.

Dollar losses reported by public sources include property and contents lost due to the wildfire and exclude the costs 

of fighting the fire, which were estimated at $8.8 million within Great Smoky Mountains National Park19 and were 

not available for the overall incident. Other sources contained dollar loss estimates from the Chimney Tops 2 fire 

that ranged from $500 million20 to $2 billion21. Related incidents in the NFIRS contained a total of $303 million22 in 

property and contents losses; 90% of that was within the wildfire boundary. 

Public sources reported the number of structures destroyed or damaged by the fire was between 1,60023 and 2,500.24

The 2,076 fire incidents reported in the NFIRS for this fire is within that range. Virtually all of the fire incidents in NFIRS 

were for structure fires where the fire spread beyond the building of origin. 

19Knoxville News Sentinel. (2016, December 28). By the numbers: Gatlinburg fire. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/

tennessee/2016/12/28/numbers-gatlinburg-fire/95847766/

20Knoxville News Sentinel. (2016, December 28). By the numbers: Gatlinburg fire. Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/

tennessee/2016/12/28/numbers-gatlinburg-fire/95847766/

21Satterfield, J. (2020, April 6). Gatlinburg’s former fire chief lambasts National Park Service in deadly wildfires lawsuit. Knox News. www.knoxnews.

com/story/news/crime/2020/04/06/gatlinburg-fire-chief-blames-national-park-service-deadly-wildfires/5116729002/

22This figure includes 16 separate incidents where property loss was reported as $1,879,600.

23Zenteno, R., Hanna, J., & Park, M. (2016, December 5). 14 confirmed dead in Tennessee wildfires. CNN. www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/us/tennesseegatlinburg-wildfires/index.html

24National Park Service. (2017, August 31). Chimney Tops 2 fire review: Individual fire review report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Division of Fire 

and Aviation. https://www.wildfirelessons.net/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=2291b1f9-d65a-4915-2257-

d76919c16132&forceDialog=0 (Page 6).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 31

Public sources reported over 190 injuries in the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire, compared to only 3 in the NFIRS incidents. 

The 3 injuries reported in NFIRS were part of the same incident as one in which 2 fatalities were recorded. No 

firefighter injuries related to the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire were reported in NFIRS, and no supplemental EMS modules 

were submitted.

NFIRS data for the wildfire

There were 2,472 incidents associated with the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire in NFIRS (Table 18). Of those, 1,746 incidents 

were located within the wildfire boundary. In total, 2,076 fires were reported, and 1,708 of those were within the 

wildfire boundary. The 2,049 fires reported on Nov. 28, 2016, the day the wildfire reached Gatlinburg, comprise 83% 

of all incidents reported. Nearly 1,600 fires were reported with an alarm time of 5:48 p.m. on Nov. 28. 

Table 18: Chimney Tops 2 reported incidents by type, date and location

Location Date Fire EMS Hazmat Service Good 

Intent

False 

Alarm Weather Special Total

All 

associated 

incidents

11/23/16-11/27/16 2 16 0 6 7 2 0 0 33

11/28/16 2,049 9 2 8 4 2 4 2 2,080

11/29/16-12/22/16 25 158 6 56 76 25 9 4 359

Within 

Boundary

11/23/16-11/27/16 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

11/28/16 1,702 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 1,708

11/29/16-12/22/16 6 2 1 8 15 0 2 2 36

Within 

Buffer

11/23/16-11/27/16 2 11 0 6 5 2 0 0 26

11/28/16 346 9 2 5 4 1 3 1 371

11/29/16-12/22/16 18 144 4 46 57 24 6 1 300

Beyond 

Buffer

11/23/16-11/27/16 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 5

11/28/16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

11/29/16-12/22/16 1 12 1 2 4 1 1 1 23

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

A total of 2,049 fires were reported on Nov. 28, 2016. Of these fires, 98.6% were structure fires, and 82.1% of them 

were located within the wildfire boundary. No mobile structure (120 series), vehicle (130 series), outside rubbish (150 

series) or crop (170 series) fires were reported (Table 19).

Table 19: Chimney Tops 2 fire incidents by Incident Type and location (Nov. 28, 2016)

Incident Type Within Boundary Within Buffer Beyond Buffer

100 — Fire, other 2 2

110 series — Structure fire 1,682 338 1

140 series — Natural vegetation fire 17 6

160 series — Special outside fire 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Of the 2,049 fires reported on Nov. 28, 2016, 98.1% were structure fires involving one- or two-family dwellings (Table 20).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 32

Table 20: Chimney Tops 2 fire incidents by property use (Nov. 28, 2016)

Incident Type Assembly

One- or 

twofamily 

dwelling

Other 

residential Business Industrial Outside/special Unknown

100 — Fire, other 1 1 2

110 series — Structure fire 1 2,011 2 1 6

140 series — Natural 

vegetation fire

3 6 10 4

160 series — Special outside 

fire

1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Responding fire departments

Fire departments submitted 5 incident reports using the Wildland Fire module and 2,026 incident reports using the 

Fire module. The remaining fires were Aid Given incidents where neither module is required.

The Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge fire departments reported the most incidents due to the wildfire. A total of 59 

departments reported incidents related to the wildfire, including departments from Indiana, Kentucky and Virginia 

(Table 21).25

Table 21: Chimney Tops 2 responding fire departments

Top 10 departments Primary Aid Given

State FDID Fire department name

Nov. 28 After Nov. 28 Nov. 28 After Nov. 28

Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other

TN 78113 Gatlinburg Fire Department 1,613 1,598 2 0 11 0 0 0

TN 78133 Pigeon Forge Fire Department 398 298 5 2 89 1 1 1

TN 78143 Sevierville Fire Department 161 1 6 0 137 0 0 0

TN 78171 Pittman Center Community Volunteer 

Fire Department

130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0

TN 78101 Wears Valley Volunteer Fire 

Department

30 3 3 0 19 0 1 0

TN 78151 Seymour Volunteer Fire Department 29 0 0 1 19 1 1 0

TN 78721 Sevier County Fire Department 21 0 1 3 13 0 0 0

TN 82131 Bluff City Fire Department 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0

TN 82121 Avoca Volunteer Fire Department 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 0

TN 62121 Madisonville Fire Department 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All Others 0 2 0 9 16 8 17 15

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

25These out-of-state departments are included in the incidents associated with the wildfire because the NFIRS reports they submitted did not 

indicate that they were giving aid.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 33

Exposures

Among the 2,074 fires reported on Nov. 28 or later, only 58 were recorded as not being caused by exposure to another 

fire (Table 22). That is, 97.2% of the fires reported in the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire were caused by exposure to another 

fire. One incident, number 1128165, reported by the Gatlinburg Fire Department, had 800 exposures, and 5 other 

incidents had over 100 exposures apiece.

Table 22: Chimney Tops 2 exposure fires

Department 

incident number

TN 78113 

1128165

TN 78113 

1128162

TN 78113 

1128161

TN 78133 

1128163

TN 78171 

0001128

TN 78113 

1128163

Total incidents 801 508 152 146 130 126

Originating Incident Type 141 141 141 141 n/a 141

Structure exposures 798 505 151 145 130 125

Outdoor exposures 2 2

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Completeness of NFIRS reporting

Completeness is a measure of how many NFIRS reports contained valid, known values for all data elements in the 

Basic, Fire and Wildland Fire modules. For the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire, the overall completeness of the Basic module 

improved with distance from the wildfire boundary. The completeness metric for the Fire and Wildland Fire modules 

was independent of distance (Table 23).

Table 23: Chimney Tops 2 completeness of NFIRS reporting

Module Metric Within Boundary Within Buffer Beyond Buffer Overall

Basic module No. of reports 1,746 697 29 2,472

% valid and 

known

56 66 73 59

Fire module No. of reports 1,686 345 1 2,032

% valid and 

known

27 27 27 27

Wildland Fire 

module

No. of reports 3 2 0 5

% valid and 

known

27 27 n/a 27

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Selected NFIRS data elements

The Chimney Tops 2 wildfire is notable among the wildfires selected for this analysis because of the number of NFIRS 

incident reports that are associated with it. However, with the exception of Property Loss and Contents Loss, many 

of the fire incident reports are identical. Table 24 is an examination of key variables for 2,074 fires reported on or 

after Nov. 28, 2016.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 34

Table 24: Chimney Tops 2 selected NFIRS data elements

Variable Description

Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

ACT_TAK1 Actions 

Taken #1

1,896 00 Action 

taken, other

130 15 Confine 

fire 

(wildland)

15 11 Extinguishment 

by fire service 

personnel

ACT_TAK2 Actions 

Taken #2

1,620 (blank) 229 73 Provide 

manpower

131 14 Contain fire 

(wildland)

ACT_TAK3 Actions 

Taken #3

1,629 (blank) 223 74 Provide 

apparatus

131 16 Control fire 

(wildland)

BLDG_

ABOVE

Building 

Height: 

Stories 

Above 

Grade

1,106 2 831 1 58 (missing 

module)

CAUSE_

IGN (Fire 

module)

Cause of 

Ignition

2,017 0 Cause, 

other

42 (missing 

module)

7 1 Intentional

FIRE_

CAUSE 

(Wildland 

Fire 

module)

Wildland 

Fire Cause

2,069 (missing 

module)

5 1 Natural 

source

FIRE_

ORIG

Fire Origin 2,016 1 58 (missing 

module)

FIRE_

SPRD

Fire Spread 2,014 5 Beyond 

building of 

origin

58 (missing 

module)

2 4 Confined to 

building of 

origin

FIRST_IGN Item First 

Ignited

2,012 10 Structural 

component 

or finish, 

other

42 (missing 

module)

14 UU Undetermined

HEAT_

SOURC 

(Fire 

module)

Heat Source 2,020 80 Heat spread 

from 

another 

fire, other

42 (missing 

module)

2 81 Heat from 

direct flame, 

convection 

currents

HEAT_

SOURC 

(Wildland 

Fire 

module)

Heat Source 2,069 (missing 

module)

5 13 Electrical 

arcing

INC_TYPE Incident 

Type

2,026 111 Building fire 30 141 Forest, 

woods or 

wildland 

fire

10 100 Fire, other

MIXED_

USE

Mixed Use 2,065 (blank) 6 40 Residential 

use

2 58 Business and 

residential use
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 35

Table 24: Chimney Tops 2 selected NFIRS data elements (continued)

Variable Description

Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

PROP_USE Property 

Use

2,012 419 One- or 

two-family 

dwelling

24 (blank) 7 669 Forest, 

timberland, 

woodland

STRUC_

STAT

Structure 

Status

2,014 2 In normal 

use

42 (missing 

module)

16 (blank)

STRUC_

TYPE

Structure 

Type

2,016 1 Enclosed 

building

58 (blank 

or 

missing 

module)

SUPP_

FACT1 

(Wildland 

Fire 

module)

Fire 

Suppression 

Factors #1

2,069 (missing 

module)

3 732 Wind, 

including 

hurricanes 

or 

tornadoes

2 711 Drought or low 

fuel moisture

SUPP_

FACT2 

(Wildland 

Fire 

module)

Fire 

Suppression 

Factors #2

2,069 (missing 

module)

3 712 Humidity, 

low

2 711 Drought or low 

fuel moisture

SUPP_

FACT3 

(Wildland 

Fire 

module)

Fire 

Suppression 

Factors #3

2,069 (missing 

module)

2 712 Humidity, 

low

2 732 Wind, including 

hurricanes or 

tornadoes

SUP_

FAC_1 

(Fire 

module)

Suppression 

Factors #1

2,021 732 Wind, 

including 

hurricanes 

or 

tornadoes

42 (missing 

module)

4 NNN None

SUP_

FAC_2 

(Fire 

module)

Suppression 

Factors #2

2,020 711 Drought 

or low fuel 

moisture

42 (missing 

module)

8 (blank)

SUP_

FAC_3 

(Fire 

module)

Suppression 

Factors #3

2,021 775 Urbanwildland 

interface 

area

42 (missing 

module)

9 (blank)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

For most NFIRS variables of interest, at least 2,000 of the 2,074 incidents reported the same values. Action Taken #1, 

a required field, was reported as “Action taken, other” in 91.4% of incidents, and Action Taken #2 and #3, optional 

fields, were left blank in approximately 78% of records. Notably, variables related to the estimation of property loss, 

such as Building Height: Stories Above Grade, appear to have a greater range of reported values. 

Collectively, these values provide an accurate description of the events at Chimney Tops 2 — fire caused by a natural 

event (Fire Cause), exacerbated by high winds, low humidity and drought conditions (Fire Suppression Factors #1, #2 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 36

and #3) spread to a WUI area (Suppression Factor #3) where the fire spread from building to building (Incident Type, 

Heat Source, Item First Ignited) and destroyed many homes (Fire Spread, Property Use). 

NFIRS fields that can capture the extent of damage such as Number of Stories with Minor/Significant/Heavy/Extreme 

Damage are optional and were not populated for the Chimney Tops 2 wildfire. 

Wildland urban interface

Nearly 35% of the area burned by the Chimney Tops 2 fire was WUI. These WUI areas contained 82% of the NFIRSreported fires. However, nearly 1,600 fires in the WUI had a geocode precision of ZIP code, which means that they 

may not have actually occurred within the WUI (Table 25).

Table 25: Chimney Tops 2 fires inside/outside of WUI

Location

Fires Structure fires

Number % of total Number % of total

In WUI, Within Boundary 1,700 81.9 1,681 82.9

Outside WUI, Within Boundary 8 0.4 4 0.2

Within Buffer 366 17.6 341 16.8

Beyond Buffer 2 0.1 2 0.1

Total 2,076 100.0 2,028 100.0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC and University of Wisconsin-Madison data.

Northwest Oklahoma Complex, Oklahoma/Kansas, 2017

The Northwest Oklahoma Complex consisted of 4 fires — the Starbuck, Selman, 283 and Beaver fires — that burned 

approximately 780,000 acres across 2 states beginning March 6, 2017. The fire was caused by a downed power line 

and spread quickly due to dry conditions and high winds.26 The fire was declared to be contained on March 22, 2017.

Approximately half (51%) of the 330 NFIRS incidents associated with the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire contained 

enough location information to be geocoded to an address. Another 44% of NFIRS incidents only contained enough 

location information to be geocoded to a ZIP code, and the remaining NFIRS incidents were geocoded to the center of a 

named road. The lack of precise location information and geocodes should be considered when examining the wildfire.

Figure 4 shows the cumulative number of fires reported in the NFIRS and acres burned for the Northwest Oklahoma 

Complex. The apparent decline in acres burned from March 9 to March 10 is due to improved measurement.

26Frazier, I. (2018, October 29). The day the Great Plains burned. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/05/the-daythe-great-plains-burned
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 37

Figure 4: Northwest Oklahoma Complex cumulative acres burned and fires reported by date

0

3/6/173/7/173/8/173/9/17

3/10/173/11/173/12/173/13/173/14/173/15/173/16/173/17/173/18/173/19/173/20/173/21/17

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Acres burned

Cumulative fires reported

Acres burned Cumulative fires reported

Northwest Oklahoma Complex, 2017

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data; National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident Number 

OK-OKS-000529. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

Figure 5 shows the area affected by the fires. Over 90% of the affected area is agricultural, including areas with less 

than 1 home per 40 acres. The 37 degrees north latitude line is the border between Oklahoma and Kansas. Red and 

blue points that appear more opaque indicate that multiple NFIRS incidents were geocoded to that location.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 38

Figure 5: Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire

36.4°N

36.6°N

36.8°N

37°N

37.2°N

37.4°N

37.6°N

100.5°W 100°W 99.5°W

Longitude

Latitude

Lines and Points

Fire Boundary

10 km Buffer

Federal Lands

State Line

County Line

NFIRS Fire

NFIRS Other

WUI Classification

WUI Interface: 0.06%

WUI Intermix: 0.08%

Non−Vegetated 

Medium and high housing density: 0%

Non−Vegetated 

Low and very low housing density: 7.55%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

No housing: 52.86%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

Very low housing density: 39.02%

Water: 0.42%

Northwest Oklahoma Complex, 2017

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S. Census and BLM data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 39

Losses

Table 26 summarizes the losses from the Northwest Oklahoma Complex fire from both public sources and from the 

NFIRS incidents that were determined to be associated with this event.

Table 26: Northwest Oklahoma Complex loss metrics

Metric Public 

sources

ICS-209a

NFIRS 

Within 

Boundary

NFIRS 

Within 

Buffer

NFIRS 

Beyond 

Buffer

Deaths 2b 2 0 0 0

Injuries 7 0 0 0

Dollar losses $64.6 Mc,d $1.5 M

Imputed dollar losses n/a $4.2 M $1.9 M $ 0

Acres burned 782,333e 779,292 286,721 706,041 141,861

Structures damaged or destroyed 140f 174

Fire incidents 164 68 7

Nonfire incidents 6 82 3

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

a

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident Number OK-OKS-000529. https://

famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

b

Associated Press. (2017, March 7). Officials: Harper County woman died while fighting fire on her farm. Fox 25. okcfox.com/news/local/officialsharper-county-woman-died-while-fighting-fire-on-her-farm

c

Legislative Division of Post Audit. (2018). Performance audit report: Kansas wildfire management: Evaluating the adequacy of Kansas’ wildfire 

suppression system. State of Kansas. www.kansasforests.org/fire_management/fire_docs/Final_Report.pdf d

Oklahoma Farm Report. (2017, March 25). Oklahoma State extension says over sixteen million dollars in losses to agriculture as a 

result of Northwest Oklahoma Fire Complex. Radio Oklahoma Network. www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2017/03/01349_

OSUExtensionCostEstimate03252017_112959.php#.YFOQpC2cbOQ

e

Oklahoma Forestry Services. (2017, March 21). Fire situation report — March 21, 2017. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

www.forestry.ok.gov/fire-situation-report-–-march-21-2017

f

Morrison, O. (2017, June 16). Damage from historic wildfires more than $80 million. The Wichita Eagle. www.kansas.com/news/state/

article156506309.html

Neither of the deaths attributed to the wildfire were recorded in NFIRS. In one case, a woman who was attempting 

to fight the fire on her farm in Oklahoma suffered a heart attack; in the other, a truck driver in Kansas was unable 

to escape the flames.

Quantifying losses from the Northwest Oklahoma Complex fires is more challenging because the Starbuck fire, the 

largest of the 4 fires in the complex, burned nearly 500,000 acres in Kansas. The remainder of the Starbuck fire and 

the other 3 fires were within Oklahoma. State insurance, forestry and emergency management resources generally 

only capture losses that occurred within the state. In Oklahoma, dollar losses were estimated at $14.6 million by the 

Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension, including losses of livestock, fencing and feed.27 In Kansas, dollar 

losses were estimated at $50 million, including livestock and fencing, but excluding the value of approximately 140 

damaged and destroyed structures.28 The NFIRS contains approximately 240 reports of fire with a total property 

and contents loss of $1.5 million. There are only 6 NFIRS reports with property losses and none with contents losses.

No EMS, Civilian Casualty or Firefighter Casualty modules were submitted in association with any NFIRS incidents 

associated with the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire.

NFIRS data for the wildfire

There are 330 incidents in NFIRS that are associated with the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire. Of those, 170 

incidents were located within the wildfire boundary. In total, 239 fires were reported, and 164 (69%) of those were 

within the wildfire boundary. The 174 fires reported on March 6, 2017, the ignition date of the wildfire, comprise 53% 

of all incidents reported; 138 fires were reported with an alarm time of 3:50 p.m. on March 6 (Table 27). 

27Oklahoma Farm Report. (2017, March 25). Oklahoma State extension says over sixteen million dollars in losses to agriculture as a 

result of Northwest Oklahoma Fire Complex. Radio Oklahoma Network. www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2017/03/01349_

OSUExtensionCostEstimate03252017_112959.php#.YFOQpC2cbOQ

28Morrison, O. (2017, June 16). Damage from historic wildfires more than $80 million. The Wichita Eagle. www.kansas.com/news/state/

article156506309.html
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 40

Table 27: Northwest Oklahoma Complex reported incidents by type, date and location

Location Date Fire EMS Hazmat Service Good 

Intent

False 

Alarm Weather Special Total

All 

associated 

incidents

3/6/17 174 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 180

3/7/17-3/22/17 65 57 2 5 13 4 2 2 150

Within 

Boundary

3/6/17 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146

3/7/17-3/22/17 18 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 24

Within 

Buffer

3/6/17 26 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 31

3/7/17-3/22/17 42 56 2 2 11 4 1 1 119

Beyond 

Buffer

3/6/17 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

3/7/17-3/22/17 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Over the duration of the wildfire, 239 fires were reported in NFIRS. Of these, 153 (64%) were structure fires, and 76 

(32%) were natural vegetation fires (Table 28).

Table 28: Northwest Oklahoma Complex fire incidents by Incident Type and location

Incident Type Within Boundary Within Buffer Beyond Buffer

100 — Fire, other 1 1 0

110 series — Structure fire 142 11 0

130 series — Mobile property fire 0 2 0

140 series — Natural vegetation fire 21 50 5

150 series — Outside rubbish fire 0 2 1

160 series — Special outside fire 0 1 0

170 series — Crop fire 0 1 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Of the 239 fires reported in NFIRS, 132 (55%) involved outside or special property (Table 29).

Table 29: Northwest Oklahoma Complex fire incidents by property use

Incident Type Assembly

One- or 

two- family 

dwelling

Other 

residential Business Industrial Storage Outside/special

Unknown/

other/n/a

100 — Fire, other 1 1

110 series — 

Structure fire

1 38 1 1 13 99

130 series — Mobile 

property fire

2

140 series — Natural 

vegetation fire

1 1 28 46

150 series — Outside 

rubbish fire

3

160 series — Special 

outside fire

1

170 series — Crop fire 1 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 41

A number of outside/special property uses were affected by the wildfire. The property use for 99 of the structure 

fires was recorded as outbuildings or shelters, and the specific property use for 28 of the natural vegetation fires 

was recorded as open lands or fields. 

Responding fire departments

Fire departments submitted incident reports using the Wildland Fire module for 18 of these fires, including 2 fires 

where aid was given. The Fire module was used for 169 incident reports of these fires, and all except 1 of the 

remaining fires were Aid Given incidents where neither module is required. 

The Ashland, Kansas, and Woodward, Oklahoma, fire departments reported the most incidents due to the wildfire. 

A total of 57 other departments reported incidents related to the wildfire, all from Oklahoma and Kansas (Table 30).

Table 30: Northwest Oklahoma Complex responding fire departments

Top 10 departments Primary Aid Given

State FDID Fire department name

March 6 After March 6 March 6 After March 6

Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other

KS CA402 Ashland Fire 84 78 0 4 2 0 0 0

OK 77006 Woodward 81 1 5 5 66 0 1 0

KS CA301 Englewood Rural Volunteer Fire 62 62 0 0 0 0 0 0

KS CA304 Minneola Fire Department 17 11 0 4 1 0 0 1

KS CM404 Comanche County Fire 9 1 0 7 0 1 0 0

KS FO403 Ford County Fire EMS 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

KS ME405 Meade Rural Fire Department 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

OK 44005 Ringwood 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

OK 77001 Fort Supply 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 0

KS ME403 Fowler Rural Fire Department 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

All Others 57 2 0 3 5 10 0 33

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Exposures

Among the 239 fires associated with the Northwest Oklahoma Complex, 151 were reported as exposures from other 

fires, 4 fires were reported as the original fire that caused those exposures, and the remaining fires were reported 

as single events (Table 31).

Table 31: Northwest Oklahoma Complex exposure fires

Department

incident number

KS CA402 

00Star1

KS CA301 

00Star3

KS CA304 

00Star2

KS ME405 

0017016

Total incidents 78 62 11 4

Originating Incident Type 143 143 143 n/a

Structure exposures 77 61 10 4

Outdoor exposures 1 1 1 0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 42

Completeness of NFIRS reporting

Completeness is a measure of how many NFIRS reports contained valid, known values for all data elements in the 

Basic, Fire and Wildland Fire modules. For the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire, the overall completeness of 

the Basic and Wildland Fire modules improved with distance from the wildfire boundary. The completeness metric 

for the Fire module declined with distance (Table 32).

Table 32: Northwest Oklahoma Complex completeness of NFIRS reporting

Module Metric Within 

Boundary Within Buffer Beyond Buffer Overall

Basic module Number of reports 170 150 10 330

% valid and known 54 61 62 57

Fire module Number of reports 144 23 2 169

% valid and known 25 20 11 24

Wildland Fire 

module

Number of reports 6 9 3 18

% valid and known 8 10 26 12

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Selected NFIRS data elements

Many of the incident reports associated with the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire are sparsely populated. Of 

the 239 fires reported to NFIRS, the Basic modules for those incidents are very similar, with the exception of AID and 

PROP_USE. The most common value for most variables from the Basic module was either blank (data elements that 

use codes) or zero (data elements that require a numeric response) (Table 33).

Table 33: Northwest Oklahoma Complex selected NFIRS data elements, Basic module

Variable Description

Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

ACT_TAK1 Actions 

Taken #1

211 11 Extinguishment by 

fire service 

personnel

7 10 Fire control or 

extinguishment, 

other

7 14 Contain fire 

(wildland)

ACT_TAK2 Actions 

Taken #2

228 (blank) 3 14 Contain fire 

(wildland)

2 17 Manage 

prescribed 

fire (wildland)

ACT_TAK3 Actions 

Taken #3

234 (blank) 2 14 Contain fire 

(wildland)

1 11 Extinguishment by 

fire service 

personnel

AID Aid Given 

or Received

99 1 Mutual aid 

received

57 2 Automatic aid 

received

52 3 Mutual aid 

given

PROP_LOSS Property 

Loss

197 (blank) 36 0 1 1

PROP_USE Property 

Use

99 926 Outbuilding, 

protective 

shelter

45 (Aid 

Given, 

optional)

40 419 One- or 

two-family 

dwelling

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 43

The Fire module was submitted for 169 fires. Reported values for most of these incidents were the same (Table 34).

Table 34: Northwest Oklahoma Complex selected NFIRS data elements, Fire module

Variable Description

Most common Second most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

AREA_ORIG Area of Origin 148 76 Wall surface: 

exterior

7 94 Open area, 

outside; 

included are 

farmland, 

field

CAUSE_IGN Cause of Ignition 152 0 Cause, other 10 2 Unintentional

DETECTOR Detector Presence 98 N None present 49 U Undetermined

FACT_IGN_1 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #1

152 71 Exposure fire 4 72 Rekindle

FACT_IGN_2 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #2

169 (blank)

FIRE_ORIG Fire Origin 147 1

FIRE_SPRD Fire Spread 146 5 Beyond building 

of origin

1 2 Confined to 

room of origin

FIRST_IGN Item First Ignited 154 UU Undetermined 8 72 Light 

vegetation — 

not crop, 

including 

grass

HEAT_

SOURC

Heat Source 149 83 Flying brand, 

ember, spark

7 43 Hot ember or 

ash

STRUC_STAT Structure Status 140 2 In normal use 22 n/a

STRUC_TYPE Structure Type 86 1 Enclosed 

building

61 2 Fixed portable 

or mobile 

structure

SUP_FAC_1 Suppression Factors #1 168 (blank) 1 NNN None

SUP_FAC_2 Suppression Factors #2 169 (blank)

SUP_FAC_3 Suppression Factors #3 169 (blank)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

The Wildland Fire module was used for 18 incidents (Table 35). AREA_TYPE, FIRE_CAUSE, FACT_IGN1 and HEAT_SOURC 

are required fields, and only FACT_IGN1 contains much variation across the incident reports. (Other values for 

FACT_IGN1 not shown in Table 35 include 71 (Exposure fire), 72 (Rekindle), 12 (Heat source too close to combustibles), 

36 (Arc, spark from operating equipment), 60 (Natural condition, other) and 70 (Fire spread or control, other).)
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 44

Table 35: Northwest Oklahoma Complex selected NFIRS data elements, Wildland Fire module

Variable Description Most common Second most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

AREA_TYPE Area Type 15 1 Rural, including 

farms > 50 acres

3 3 Rural/urban 

or suburban

BLDG_INV Number of Buildings 

Involved

2 0 1 12

BLDG_THR Number of Buildings 

Threatened

2 0

FACT_IGN1 Factors Contributing to 

Ignition #1

4 UU Undetermined 3 61 High wind

FACT_IGN2 Factors Contributing to 

Ignition #2

18 (blank)

FIRE_CAUSE Wildland Fire Cause 13 U Undetermined 3 4 Open/

outdoor fire

HEAT_SOURC Heat Source 7 UU Undetermined 4 43 Hot ember 

or ash

SUPP_FACT1 Fire Suppression Factors #1 18 (blank)

SUPP_FACT2 Fire Suppression Factors #2 18 (blank)

SUPP_FACT3 Fire Suppression Factors #3 18 (blank)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

The NFIRS reports associated with the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire provide a good overview of the event, 

particularly in enumerating the extent of damage (Fire Spread), how the fire started (Area of Origin, Heat Source) 

and how the property was used (Property Use). However, there are some inconsistencies and deficiencies in the 

NFIRS data. For example, the second most common structure type reported in the Fire module is “fixed portable 

or mobile structure,” yet there were no corresponding incident types (120 series — Fire in mobile property used 

as fixed structure) among the NFIRS reports. Property and content losses were not well reported — only 6 NFIRS 

reports provided a nonzero value for Property Loss, and virtually all of the losses for the entire wildfire come from 

a single incident where the reported loss was $1.5 million. (That incident, a tractor-trailer fire reported a week after 

the wildfire began, may or may not have been related to the wildfire.)

Wildland urban interface

Only a small portion, 0.14%, of the area affected by the Northwest Oklahoma Complex wildfire was WUI.

West Mims, Georgia/Florida, 2017

The West Mims wildfire was ignited by lightning in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge on April 6, 2017.29 It 

grew to approximately 20,000 acres within a week, and then to 140,000 acres over the next 3 weeks.30 Because the 

wildfire was largely contained within the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, it was allowed to burn, but it did ignite 

commercial timberlands neighboring the refuge. The number of fires reported in NFIRS nearly tripled between May 7 

and May 14, which may coincide with the wildfire’s spread beyond the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 6). 

The wildfire was declared controlled by June 11, 2017.

For the West Mims fire, 28% of NFIRS incidents contained sufficient location information to be geocoded to an 

address. For 42% of NFIRS incidents, the location information was sufficient to be geocoded to the center of a named 

street, and 30% of NFIRS incidents were geocoded to the center of a ZIP code. The lack of precise location information 

and geocodes should be considered when examining the wildfire.

29Pohl, J. (2017, May 11). Video: DC-10 makes drop on West Mims fire [Video]. Fire Aviation. fireaviation.com/tag/west-mims-fire/ 30National Weather Service. (n.d.). West Mims fire 2017. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www.weather.gov/jax/WestMimsFire_

Apr_thru_Jul_2017
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 45

Figure 6: West Mims cumulative acres burned and fires reported by date

0

4/7/17

4/14/174/21/174/28/17

5/5/17

5/12/175/19/175/26/17

6/2/176/9/17

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

70

60

Acres burned

Cumulative fires reported

Acres burned Cumulative fires reported

West Mims, 2017

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data; National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident Number 

GA-OKR-017006. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

Figure 7 shows a map of the affected area. Over 95% of the area within the fire boundary (red outline) contains no 

housing. About 3.25% of the area within the fire boundary consists of low-density housing, which is less than 1 home 

per 40 acres.

Federally managed lands are outlined in gray. The predominant one is the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, 

where most of the West Mims wildfire occurred. A portion of the wildfire boundary extends beyond federal lands, 

particularly on the southeast corner of the refuge. Orange lines in the figure represent the Georgia-Florida border.

The map shows that only 2 NFIRS-reported incidents occurred within the fire boundary. Due to the size of the map, 

it may appear that some red points (indicating NFIRS-reported fires) are also within the fire boundary, but these are 

actually polygons that represent “holes” where the wildfire did not burn. Points that appear more opaque indicate 

that multiple NFIRS incidents were geocoded to that location.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 46

Figure 7: West Mims wildfire

30.3°N

30.4°N

30.5°N

30.6°N

30.7°N

30.8°N

30.9°N

82.6°W 82.4°W 82.2°W 82°W

Longitude

Latitude

Lines and Points

Fire Boundary

10 km Buffer

Federal Lands

State Line

County Line

NFIRS Fire

NFIRS Other

WUI Classification

Non−Vegetated 

Low and very low housing density: 0.01%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

No housing: 95.41%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

Very low housing density: 3.28%

Water: 1.3%

West Mims, 2017

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S. Census and BLM data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 47

Losses

Table 36 summarizes the losses from the West Mims fire from both public sources and from the NFIRS incidents that 

were determined to be associated with this event.

Table 36: West Mims loss metrics

Metric Public 

sources

ICS-209a

NFIRS 

Within 

Boundary

NFIRS 

Within 

Buffer

NFIRS 

Beyond 

Buffer

Deaths 0 0 0 0 0

Injuries 0 8 0 0 0

Dollar losses $38.2 Mb n/a 0 $320 K 0

Imputed dollar losses n/a n/a 0 $357 K $123 K

Acres burned 152,515c 152,515 0 19 1,976,011

Structures damaged or destroyed 4d 4 n/a n/a n/a

Fire incidents n/a n/a 0 19 39

Nonfire incidents n/a n/a 2 58 29

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

a

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident Number GA-OKR-017006. https://

famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

b

Bates, C. (n.d.). Wildfire damage assessment for the West Mims fire. Georgia Forestry Commission. gatrees.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/

Wildfire-Damage-Assessment-for-the-West-Mims-Fire.pdf

c

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Southeast Region Fire Division Report FY2017. www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/fire-report-2017-508.pdf d

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Southeast Region Fire Division Report FY2017. www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/fire-report-2017-508.pdf

No casualties were reported from the West Mims wildfire, either from public sources or from NFIRS. No Civilian 

Casualty or Firefighter Casualty modules were submitted for this event. 12 EMS modules were submitted: all of them 

reported “Other” for the provider’s initial assessment and indicated that the level of treatment required was EMS 

Basic. None of the patients required hospital transport. 3 of the EMS modules were submitted for motor vehicle 

accidents, and the remaining incident types were “EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury.”

The dollar losses reported by the public sources consist of an estimate from the Georgia Forestry Commission, 

which estimated the loss of commercial timber at $38.2 million. A report from the FWS estimates the cost of the 

West Mims wildfire at $51 million, but that figure includes an undetermined subtotal of firefighting costs.31 The FWS 

report also reported that 4 outbuildings were destroyed outside the boundary of the Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge. Losses reported in NFIRS include $50,000 from a structure fire on May 3 and $270,000 from a fire involving 

an off-road vehicle or heavy equipment on May 18.

The West Mims wildfire burned 152,515 acres according to the FWS and several other public sources. The NFIRS 

estimate for acres burned includes 13 reports from the same department on sequential days (May 6 through May 

18) that reported 152,000 acres burned per incident. This is likely an error in NFIRS reporting.

A challenge for assessing the West Mims wildfire is that the FWS has jurisdiction over much of the affected area and 

it does not report in the NFIRS. 

NFIRS data for the wildfire

There are 147 incidents in NFIRS that are associated with the West Mims wildfire. Just 2 of those incidents were 

geocoded to be within the wildfire boundary, while 77 were geocoded within 10 kilometers of the perimeter and 68 

were geocoded between 10 and 20 kilometers from the perimeter (Table 37). 

Table 37 also shows that the most common nonfire incidents were EMS (11 motor vehicle accidents, 17 other EMS calls 

and 13 calls for medical assistance) and Good Intent (13 canceled en route, 6 smoke scare, 2 prescribed fires and 6 other).

31U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Southeast Region Fire Division Report FY2017. www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/fire-report-2017-508.pdf
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 48

Table 37: West Mims reported incidents by type, date and location

Location Date Fire EMS Hazmat Service Good 

Intent

False 

Alarm Weather Special Total

All 

associated 

incidents

4/6/17-6/11/17 58 41 3 12 27 3 1 2 147

Within 

Boundary

4/6/17-6/11/17 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

Within 

Buffer

4/6/17-6/11/17 19 26 2 10 17 1 0 2 77

Beyond 

Buffer

4/6/17-6/11/17 39 14 1 2 9 2 1 0 68

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Of the 58 fires in NFIRS associated with the West Mims wildfire, the majority (44) were natural vegetation fires, evenly 

distributed between forest (Incident Type 141) and grassland (Incident Type 142) fires. There were 8 reports of vehicle 

fires and 5 reports of structure fires. No fires were reported to NFIRS from within the wildfire boundary itself (Table 38).

Table 38: West Mims fire incidents by Incident Type and location

Incident Type Within Buffer Beyond Buffer

110 series — Structure fire 4 1

130 series — Mobile property fire 2 6

140 series — Natural vegetation fire 12 32

150 series — Outside rubbish fire 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

21 incidents were reported on property used for farming timber (PROP_USE 669), including 2 vehicle incident types 

and 19 natural vegetation incident types. A large share of incidents was reported across a variety of special property 

uses including open land and roadways (Table 39). 

Table 39: West Mims fire incidents by property use

Incident Type Assembly

One- or 

two-family 

dwelling

Other 

residential Industrial Outside/special Unknown

110 series — Structure fire 1 3 0 1

130 series — Mobile property fire 0 1 3 3 1

140 series — Natural vegetation fire 2 19 14 9

150 series — Outside rubbish fire 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Despite the prevalence of natural vegetation incident types, no NFIRS reports were submitted with the Wildland 

Fire module. The Fire module was submitted for 43 of the fires but was not required for 14 of the fires because the 

department was giving aid and was omitted (although required for 1 fire).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 49

Responding fire departments

Charlton County Fire Rescue (Georgia) and Nassau County Fire Rescue (Florida) reported the most incidents related 

to the West Mims wildfire. In total, 9 fire departments contributed to the response (Table 40).

Table 40: West Mims responding fire departments

All departments Primary Aid Given

State FDID Fire department name Fires Other Fires Other

GA 02401 Charlton County Fire Rescue 66 36 28 2

FL 41022 Nassau County Fire Rescue 33 4 29 0

FL 52021 Baker County Volunteer Fire Department 28 4 23 1

GA 05100 Effingham Fire Department 9 0 0 9

GA 12900 Sumter County Fire Department 4 0 4 0

GA 00204 Atkinson County Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 0 0

GA 02002 Camden County Fire Rescue 2 0 0 1

GA 03401 Coffee County Fire Department 2 0 1 0

GA 08601 Lakeland Lanier Fire Rescue 1 0 0 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Exposures

None of the fires reported to NFIRS were reported as exposures from other fires.

Completeness of NFIRS reporting

Completeness is a measure of how many NFIRS reports contained valid, known values for all data elements in the 

Basic, Fire and Wildland Fire modules. As shown in Table 41, for the West Mims wildfire, the overall completeness of 

the Basic module improved with distance from the wildfire boundary. The completeness metric for the Fire module 

declined with distance. No NFIRS incidents were submitted using the Wildland Fire module.

Table 41: West Mims completeness of NFIRS reporting

Module Metric Within 

Boundary

Within 

Buffer

Beyond 

Buffer Overall

Basic module Number of reports 2 77 68 147

% valid and known 57 66 68 67

Fire module Number of reports 0 9 34 43

% valid and known n/a 23 15 16

Wildland Fire module Number of reports 0 0 0 0

% valid and known n/a n/a n/a n/a

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Selected NFIRS data elements

A closer examination of the 58 NFIRS-reported fires provides some additional context for the West Mims wildfire 

(Table 42). Most of the reported incidents were natural vegetation fires where the property use was timberlands. 

Trees were the first material ignited, and the material stored on site was timber. Most reports did not include useful 

information about cause of ignition, fire spread, heat source or suppression factors. 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 50

Table 42: West Mims selected NFIRS data elements

Variable Description

Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

ACT_TAK1 Actions 

Taken #1

30 11 Extinguishment by 

fire service 

personnel

23 73 Provide 

manpower

2 76 Provide water

ACT_TAK2 Actions 

Taken #2

21 74 Provide 

apparatus

17 (blank) 8 73 Provide 

manpower

ACT_TAK3 Actions 

Taken #3

40 (blank) 6 76 Provide 

water

5 73 Provide 

manpower

DET_

ALERT

Detector 

Alerted 

Occupants

52 (blank) 4 2 Detector 

did not 

alert 

occupants

2 U Unknown

HAZ_REL Hazardous 

Material 

Released

53 (blank) 5 N No hazmat 

involved

INC_TYPE Incident Type 23 141 Forest, 

woods or 

wildland fire

21 142 Brush or 

brushand-grass 

mixture 

fire

5 111 Building fire

MIXED_

USE

Mixed Use 52 (blank) 4 NN Not mixed 

use

2 40 Residential 

use

PROP_USE Property Use 21 669 Forest, 

timberland, 

woodland

10 (blank) 6 419 One- or 

two-family 

dwelling

ACRES_

BURN

Acres Burned 38 (blank) 13 152000 2 0

AREA_

ORIG

Area of 

Origin

19 95 Wildland, 

woods

15 (missing 

module)

14 UU Undetermined

CAUSE_

IGN

Cause of 

Ignition

21 U Cause 

undetermined after 

investigation

15 (missing 

module)

14 4 Act of nature

FACT_

IGN_1

Factors 

Contributing 

To Ignition 

#1

24 UU Undetermined15 (missing 

module)

11 60 Natural 

condition, 

other

FIRE_SPRD Fire Spread 55 (blank 

or 

missing 

module)

3 5 Beyond 

building of 

origin
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 51

Table 42: West Mims selected NFIRS data elements (continued)

Variable Description

Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

FIRST_IGN Item First 

Ignited

23 UU Undetermined16 73 Heavy 

vegetation — not 

crop, 

including 

trees

15 (blank)

HEAT_

SOURC

Heat Source 27 UU Undetermined15 (missing 

module)

13 73 Lightning 

discharge

ON_SITE_

M1

On Site 

Materials #1

15 131 Trees, 

plants, 

flowers

15 (missing 

module)

12 UUU Undetermined

ON_SITE_

M2

On Site 

Materials #2

42 (blank) 15 (missing 

module)

1 813 Motor vehicle 

parts, not 

including tires

ON_SITE_

M3

On Site 

Materials #3

42 (blank) 15 (missing 

module)

1 311 Lumber, sawn 

wood

SUP_FAC_1 Suppression 

Factors #1

39 (blank) 15 (missing 

module)

4 NNN None

SUP_FAC_2 Suppression 

Factors #2

43 (blank) 15 (missing 

module)

SUP_FAC_3 Suppression 

Factors #3

43 (blank) 15 (missing 

module)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

There is relatively little data in NFIRS about the West Mims wildfire, likely due to the fact that most of the acreage 

that was burned was within the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge where the FWS coordinated the fire response. 

Small areas outside the refuge were burned, particularly in the period between May 6 and May 18, mainly consuming 

standing commercial timber. Smoke from the wildfire affected air quality as far away as Jacksonville, Florida, but the 

fire boundary only included a very small area where the housing density was greater than 1 home per 40 acres. This 

helps to explain the lack of structure fires in the NFIRS data as well as the lack of casualties and property losses.

Wildland urban interface

None of the area affected by the West Mims wildfire was WUI.

Spring Creek, Colorado, 2018

The Spring Creek wildfire started on June 27, 2018, from a campfire that was not extinguished.32 In the first week, it 

grew to over 94,000 acres33 as it burned in a mountainous area of southeastern Colorado. Eventually it consumed 

over 108,000 acres before it was fully contained in early September.34

Overall, 69% of NFIRS-reported incidents for the Spring Creek wildfire were geocoded to the center of ZIP codes, 

while 23% were geocoded to addresses. The remaining incidents were geocoded to the center of named roads. 

32Brown, J., & Blevins, J. (2018, November 1). Wildfires in Colorado cost $130 million in 2018. Here are the details, down to the $40 daily rate on 

portable toilets. Colorado Sun. coloradosun.com/2018/11/01/wildfire-costs-colorado-2018/ 33The Denver Channel. (2018, July 4). Spring fire now the 3rd largest in Colorado history at more than 94,000 acres. www.thedenverchannel.

com/news/local-news/spring-fire-now-the-3rd-largest-in-colorado-history-at-more-than-94-000-acres

34Minor, N. (2018, September 13). In the Spring Creek fire’s wake, heartbreak before a long recovery. CPR News. www.cpr.org/2018/09/13/in-thespring-creek-fires-wake-heartbreak-before-a-long-recovery/
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 52

Because geocodes were used to determine whether NFIRS incidents occurred within the wildfire boundary or within a 

10-kilometer buffer area, the lack of precise location information and geocodes should be considered when examining 

the wildfire.

Figure 8 shows the cumulative number of fires reported in the NFIRS and acres burned for the Spring Creek wildfire. 

This figure does not include fires that were not reported to the NFIRS, which are believed to be numerous. 

Figure 8: Spring Creek cumulative acres burned and fires reported by date

0

6/27/18

7/4/18

7/11/187/18/187/25/18

8/1/188/8/18

8/15/188/22/18

9/5/18

8/29/18

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Acres burned

Cumulative fires reported

Acres burned Cumulative fires reported

Spring Creek, 2018

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data; National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number 

CO-CTX-001266. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

Figure 9 is a map of the affected area. The green triangles in the southwest section of the affected area represent 

homes in Costilla County that were damaged or destroyed by the wildfire, as reported by the Costilla County 

Assessor.35 These incidents were not in the NFIRS; the Costilla County Fire Protection District (CO 02310) has not 

reported any incidents to the NFIRS since 2015.

Some portions of the 10-kilometer buffer around the wildfire boundary are not included in the map, and some 

incidents in the Beyond Buffer area are not shown. This includes 13 NFIRS incidents approximately 15 kilometers east 

of the wildfire boundary, near Walsenburg, Colorado. These incidents are plotted at the center of a ZIP code because 

the location information provided was not complete enough to geocode them with greater precision. They may have 

occurred anywhere within the ZIP code.

35Assessor, Forbes Park, Costilla County, Colorado. (2018, July 5). F.P. Final Damage Assessment - July 5 Notification. drive.google.com/file/

d/1XVWySYeV-Jp_VuLc6qIt4z3baj9g_IWQ/view
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 53

Figure 9: Spring Creek wildfire

37.4°N

37.45°N

37.5°N

37.55°N

37.6°N

37.65°N

37.7°N

105.3°W 105.2°W 105.1°W 105°W 104.9°W

Longitude

Latitude

Lines and Points

Fire Boundary

10 km Buffer

Federal Lands

County Line

NFIRS Fire

NFIRS Other

Non−NFIRS Damaged/Destroyed

WUI Classification

WUI Interface: 0.02%

WUI Intermix: 7.41%

Non−Vegetated 

Low and very low housing density: 0.1%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

No housing: 32.07%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

Very low housing density: 60.39%

Water: 0%

Spring Creek, 2018

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC, Costilla County Assessor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S. Census and BLM data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 54

Losses

Table 43 summarizes the losses from the Spring Creek fire from both public sources and from the NFIRS incidents 

that were determined to be associated with this event.

Table 43: Spring Creek loss metrics

Metric Public 

sources

ICS-209a 

NFIRS

Within 

Boundary

NFIRS

Within 

Buffer

NFIRS

Beyond 

Buffer

Deaths 0 0 0 0 0

Injuries 0 10 0 0 0

Dollar losses $8.2 Mb n/a 0 0 0

Imputed dollar losses n/a n/a $3,200 $400 $1,000

Acres burned 108,045c 108.045 0 0 0

Structures damaged or destroyed 140d 344 n/a n/a n/a

Fire incidents n/a n/a 4 2 5

Nonfire incidents n/a n/a 2 5 8

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

a

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number CO-CTX-001266. https://

famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

b

Craddock, M. (2018, July 26). Property losses in Huerfano County top $8.2 million from Spring fire. World Journal. worldjournalnewspaper.com/

property-losses-in-huerfano-county-top-8-2-million-from-spring-fire/

c

KOAA News5. (2018, September 10). Spring fire now officially 100 percent contained. www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/2018/09/10/

spring-fire-now-officially-100-percent-contained/

d

KOAA News5. (2018, September 10). Spring fire now officially 100 percent contained. www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/2018/09/10/

spring-fire-now-officially-100-percent-contained/

No casualty reports were found in a search of public sources, and none were reported in NFIRS. There were no Civilian 

Casualty, Firefighter Casualty or EMS modules filed as a result of the Spring Creek wildfire.

The $8.2 million in property losses attributed to the Spring Creek wildfire are from Huerfano County and do not 

include firefighting or other indirect costs. The wildfire also burned portions of Costilla County, and those property 

losses are undetermined. Firefighting costs for the overall incident were estimated at $32 million.36

News articles typically reference 140 damaged or destroyed structures from the Spring Creek wildfire, likely because 

the person who started the campfire has been charged with 140 counts of arson. The Costilla County Assessor’s 

Office surveyed damage in a neighborhood called Forbes Park and identified 142 structures that were partially or 

completely destroyed.37 However, NFIRS only contains 9 reported fires and only 2 of those were within the first week 

of the fire, when most of the structure damage took place.

NFIRS data for the wildfire

Only 26 incidents related to the Spring Creek fire were reported to NFIRS — 11 fires and 15 other incidents. 2 fires 

and 2 other incidents were reported in the first week after the fire began — the week when most of the structure 

damage and property loss occurred. The remaining incidents were reported through the containment date (Table 44).

36Brown, J., & Blevins, J. (2018, November 1). Wildfires in Colorado cost $130 million in 2018. Here are the details, down to the $40 daily rate on 

portable toilets. Colorado Sun. coloradosun.com/2018/11/01/wildfire-costs-colorado-2018/ 37Assessor, Forbes Park, Costilla County, Colorado. (2018, July 5). F.P. Final Damage Assessment - July 5 Notification. drive.google.com/file/

d/1XVWySYeV-Jp_VuLc6qIt4z3baj9g_IWQ/view
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 55

Table 44: Spring Creek reported incidents by type, date and location

Location When Fire Hazmat Service Good 

Intent

False 

Alarm Total

All associated incidents 6/27/18-7/6/18 2 0 0 1 1 4

7/7/18-9/10/18 9 1 2 9 1 22

Within Boundary 6/27/18-7/6/18 2 0 0 0 0 2

7/7/18-9/10/18 2 0 0 2 0 4

Within Buffer 6/27/18-7/6/18 0 0 0 1 1 2

7/7/18-9/10/18 2 0 0 2 1 5

Beyond Buffer 6/27/18-7/6/18 0 0 0 0 0 0

7/7/18-9/10/18 5 1 2 5 0 13

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

All of the reported fires were natural vegetation fires (Incident Type 140 series) (Table 45).

Table 45: Spring Creek fire incidents by Incident Type and location

Incident Type Within Boundary Within Buffer Beyond Buffer

141 — Forest, woods or wildland fire 2 2 0

142 — Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 1 0 2

143 — Grass fire 1 0 3

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

For reported fires, the most common property use was highway (Table 46).

Table 46: Spring Creek fire incidents by property use

Incident Type

669 — Forest, 

timberland, 

woodland

931 — Open 

land or field

938 — Graded 

and cared-for 

plots of land

961 — Highway 

or divided 

highway

Not recorded

141 — Forest, 

woods or 

wildland fire

1 0 1 0 2

142 — Brush or 

brush-and-grass 

mixture fire

0 1 0 1 1

143 — Grass fire 1 0 0 3 0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Fire departments submitted incident reports using the Wildland Fire module for 8 of these fires. The remaining 3 

fires were Aid Given incidents where neither the Fire nor the Wildland Fire module is required.

Responding fire departments

As shown in Table 47, 5 fire departments reported incidents associated with the Spring Creek wildfire. 15 of the 26 

incidents were reported by the Huerfano County Fire Protection District, and 6 were reported by the La Veta Fire 

Protection District. 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 56

Table 47: Spring Creek responding fire departments

All 5 departments Primary Aid Given

State FDID Fire department name June 27 - July 6 July 7 – Sept. 10 June 27 – July 6 July 7 – Sept. 10

Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other

CO 05520 Huerfano County Fire 

Protection District

0 0 5 9 1 0 0 0

CO 05530 La Veta Fire Protection District 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0

CO 07130 Hoehne Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

CO 07156 Purgatoire River Volunteer 

Fire Department

0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

CO 07160 Trinidad Fire Department 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Exposures

None of the fires reported in NFIRS were reported as exposure fires.

Completeness of NFIRS reporting

Completeness is a measure of how many NFIRS reports contained valid, known values for all data elements in the 

Basic, Fire and Wildland Fire modules. For the Spring Creek wildfire, the overall completeness of the Basic module 

was slightly better for incidents outside the wildfire boundary. The completeness metric for the Wildland Fire module 

declined with distance. No NFIRS incidents were submitted using the Fire module (Table 48).

Table 48: Spring Creek completeness of NFIRS reporting

Module Within 

Boundary

Within 

Buffer

Beyond 

Buffer Overall

Basic module Number of reports 6 7 13 26

% valid and known 56 61 57 58

Fire module Number of reports 0 0 0 0

% valid and known n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wildland Fire module Number of reports 1 2 5 8

% valid and known 24 19 8 13

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Selected NFIRS data elements

Among 11 NFIRS-reported fire incidents, the Wildland Fire module was submitted for 8. (The remaining incidents 

were unduplicated Aid Given incidents that do not require supplemental modules.) Values reported for Actions Taken 

are consistent with natural vegetation fires. Cause-related values from the Wildland Fire module, when populated, 

suggest fires caused by natural sources such as lightning storms (Table 49).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 57

Table 49: Spring Creek selected NFIRS data elements

Variable Descriptions

Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

ACT_TAK1 Actions 

Taken #1

6 11 Extinguishment by 

fire service 

personnel

1 14 Contain fire 

(wildland)

1 73 Provide 

manpower

ACT_TAK2 Actions 

Taken #2

9 (blank) 1 13 Establish 

fire lines 

(wildfire)

1 16 Control 

fire 

(wildland)

ACT_TAK3 Actions 

Taken #3

11 (blank)

AREA_TYPE Area Type 5 1 Rural, 

including 

farms > 50 

acres

3 (missing 

module)

2 3 Rural/

urban or 

suburban

FACT_IGN1 Factors 

Contributing 

to Ignition #1

4 UU Undetermined3 (missing 

module)

2 62 Storm

FIRE_CAUSE Wildland Fire 

Cause

4 1 Natural 

source

4 U Undetermined3 (missing 

module)

HEAT_SOURC Heat Source 4 UU Undetermined3 73 Lightning 

discharge

3 (missing 

module)

SUPP_FACT1 Fire 

Suppression 

Factors #1

7 (blank) 3 (missing 

module)

1 721 Fog

SUPP_FACT2 Fire 

Suppression 

Factors #2

8 (blank) 3 (missing 

module)

SUPP_FACT3 Fire 

Suppression 

Factors #3

8 (blank) 3 (missing 

module)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Virtually all of the optional fields in the Wildland Fire module were not completed for the 8 fire incidents where the 

module was submitted. Those fields would provide a more complete picture of the incident, including information 

about weather conditions (Weather Type, Wind Direction, Wind Speed, Air Temperature, Relative Humidity), fire 

behavior (Flame Length, Rate of Spread), terrain (Aspect, Relative Position on Slope, Elevation), fuels (NFDRS Fuel 

Model at Origin, Primary Crop Burned #1/#2/#3) and impacted structures (Buildings Involved, Buildings Threatened).

Wildland urban interface

Slightly more than 7.4% of the area affected by the Spring Creek wildfire was WUI. However, only 4 fires within the 

wildfire boundary were reported to the NFIRS. It appears that some incidents in WUI areas were recorded by the 

Costilla County Assessor (see Figure 9), but these incidents were not reported to the NFIRS.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 58

Woolsey, California (Southern), 2018

The Woolsey wildfire started on Nov. 8, 2018, on the grounds of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory; the cause is 

currently under investigation.38 Santa Ana winds pushed the fire southward toward Malibu; most of the structure 

damage from the fire occurred within the first 24 hours. The fire was declared to be contained on Nov. 21, 2018, after 

burning nearly 100,000 acres (Figure 10).

Location information for 71% of the NFIRS incidents associated with the Woolsey fire was sufficient for the incidents 

to be geocoded to an address. Most of the remaining NFIRS incidents contained location information that allowed the 

incidents to be geocoded to either the center of a ZIP code or to the center of a named street. A small share (3%) of 

incidents were geocoded to the City Mean, which means that the city name provided in NFIRS was not unique within 

the state, and the geocoder returned the midpoint between two cities with the same name. The precision of location 

information and geocodes has a direct relationship on the identification of incidents associated with the wildfire and 

should be considered when examining the event.

Figure 10: Woolsey cumulative acres burned and reported fires by date

0

11/8/1811/9/18

11/10/1811/11/1811/12/1811/13/1811/14/1811/15/1811/16/1811/17/1811/18/1811/19/1811/20/1811/21/18

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

140

120

Acres burned

Cumulative fires reported

Acres burned Cumulative fires reported

Woolsey, 2018

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data; National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number 

CA-VNC-091023. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

Figure 11 depicts the area affected by the Woolsey fire. In California, responsibility for direct protection is divided between 

federal, state and local authorities. The light blue lines in the map surround areas where local authorities are responsible 

for direct protection. Most of the reported NFIRS incidents are located within the local direct protection areas.

The map depicts an area between the coast and the Santa Susana mountains above Malibu with a significant amount 

of WUI intermix area where very few incidents were reported. This area is split between state and federal direct 

protection areas.

38 CAL FIRE. (2019, October 25). 2018 Incident Archive — Woolsey Fire. www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/woolsey-fire/
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 59

Figure 11: Woolsey wildfire

33.9°N

34°N

34.1°N

34.2°N

34.3°N

34.4°N

34.5°N

119.2°W 119°W 118.8°W 118.6°W 118.4°W

Longitude

Latitude

Lines and Points

Fire Boundary

10 km Buffer

Federal Lands

County Line

Local Protection Area

NFIRS Fire

NFIRS Other

WUI Classification

WUI Interface: 7.69%

WUI Intermix: 25.7%

Non−Vegetated 

Medium and high housing density: 0.1%

Non−Vegetated 

Low and very low housing density: 1.3%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

No housing: 53.33%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

Very low housing density: 11.52%

Water: 0.35%

Woolsey, 2018

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S. Census and BLM data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 60

Losses

Table 50 summarizes the losses from the Woolsey fire from both public sources and from the NFIRS incidents that 

were determined to be associated with this event.

Table 50: Woolsey loss metrics

Metric Public sources ICS-209a NFIRS Within 

Boundary

NFIRS Within 

Buffer

NFIRS Beyond 

Buffer

Deaths 3b 3 0 0 0

Injuries 3c 3 0 0 0

Dollar losses $2.93 Bd n/a $6.05 M $0.85 M $0.05 M

Imputed dollar lossese n/a n/a $6.08 M $0.35 M $0.11 M

Acres burned 96,949f 96,949 97,000 280,307 1

Structures damaged or 

destroyed

2,007g 2,007 n/a n/a n/a

Fire incidents n/a n/a 14 87 27

Nonfire incidents n/a n/a 199 186 1,388

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

a

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number CA-VNC-091023. https://

famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

b

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

c

Holland, E. (2018, November 28). $6 billion in real estate destroyed in Woolsey fire: Report. Patch. patch.com/california/malibu/6-billion-realestate-destroyed-woolsey-fire-report

d

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

e

Imputed dollar losses in the wildfire buffer are lower than reported dollar losses because the imputation methodology discards reported losses 

where aid is given and substitutes the appropriate median. Reported losses include $700,000 from a single aid-given incident, which is changed 

to $1,000 for the imputed dollar loss. Imputed dollar losses also include estimates for other incidents for which no dollar losses were reported.

f

Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-AfterAction-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf

g

Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-AfterAction-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf

Public sources reported 3 deaths and 3 firefighter injuries as a result of the Woolsey wildfire. There were no NFIRS 

reports of casualties, though 2 EMS incidents were reported using the EMS module.

Dollar losses reported by public sources include property and contents lost due to the wildfire and exclude the costs 

of fighting the fire. An after-action report commissioned for Los Angeles County estimated firefighting costs of $52 

million,39 which does not include costs incurred in Ventura County or by federal agencies. Other estimates of dollar 

losses ranged from $4 billion to $6 billion, including indirect costs.40 Related incidents in the NFIRS contained a total 

of $6.9 million in property and contents losses, and 90% of that was within the wildfire boundary. 

Public sources reported the number of structures destroyed or damaged by the fire was between 1,50041 and 2,000.42

The number of fires reported to NFIRS in the time and region of the Woolsey wildfire was 128, which may include 

fires unrelated to the wildfire. An NFIRS report from Imperial County Fire Department (CA 13025) reported a natural 

vegetation fire with 616 buildings involved.

The Woolsey wildfire was officially measured at 98,969 acres burned. 4 incident reports in NFIRS reported at least 

90,000 acres burned, but it is unlikely that any of those incident reports was intended to be for the entire wildfire.

39Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-AfterAction-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf

40Holland, E. (2018, November 28). $6 billion in real estate destroyed in Woolsey fire: Report. Patch. patch.com/california/malibu/6-billion-realestate-destroyed-woolsey-fire-report

41Foley, M. (2019, November, December). The high cost of wildfire in 2018. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-andmedia/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Wildfire-Sidebar

42Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-AfterAction-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 61

NFIRS data for the wildfire

A total of 1,901 NFIRS incidents may be associated with the Woolsey wildfire, including 128 fires (Table 51). Over half 

(989) of these incidents are EMS incidents, 90.5% of which were reported within 10 kilometers of the wildfire boundary. 

A large number of incidents (22.4%) were Good Intent Calls, and 248 of those were INC_TYPE 611 (canceled en route). 

Table 51: Woolsey reported incidents by type, date and location

When Fire Explosion EMS Hazmat Service Good 

Intent

False 

Alarm Weather Special Total

All 

associated 

incidents

11/8/2018 15 0 44 4 11 38 10 0 1 123

11/9/2018-11/21/2018 113 4 945 46 139 388 132 2 9 1,778

Within 

Boundary

11/8/2018 0 0 9 0 3 3 1 0 0 16

11/9/2018-11/21/2018 14 1 78 5 38 43 16 0 2 197

Within 

Buffer

11/8/2018 13 0 28 4 8 32 7 0 1 93

11/9/2018-11/21/2018 74 3 780 34 91 301 91 2 6 1,382

Beyond 

Buffer

11/8/2018 2 0 7 0 0 3 2 0 0 14

11/9/2018-11/21/2018 25 0 87 7 10 44 25 0 1 199

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Of the 128 NFIRS-reported fires, 54 were natural vegetation fires, 22 were structure fires, and 15 were outdoor rubbish 

fires. 21 other fires were classified as “Other” (Table 52).

Table 52: Woolsey fire incidents by Incident Type and location

Incident Type

Within Boundary Within Buffer Beyond Buffer

11/8/2018 11/9/2018-

11/21/2018 11/8/2018 11/9/2018-11/21/2018 11/8/2018 11/9/2018-11/21/2018

100 — Fire, other 0 3 2 10 0 6

110 series — Structure fire 0 4 1 13 0 4

120 series — Fire in mobile property 

used as fixed structure

0 0 0 1 0 0

130 series — Mobile property fire 0 0 0 7 0 6

140 series — Natural vegetation fire 0 6 7 34 1 6

150 series — Outside rubbish fire 0 1 2 9 1 2

160 series — Special outside fire 0 0 1 0 0 1

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

NFIRS fires recorded for the Woolsey wildfire include a diverse set of property uses (Table 53). 28 fires occurred on 

residential property. The Outside/special category for property use included 22 fires in open land/fields and 34 fires 

on roads and highways.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 62

Table 53: Woolsey fire incidents by property use

Incident Type Assembly

One- or 

two- family 

dwelling

Other 

residential Business Industrial Storage Outside/special Unknown

100 — Fire, other 0 2 0 2 0 0 14 3

110 series — 

Structure fire

2 7 6 1 0 0 5 1

120 series — Fire in 

mobile property used 

as fixed structure

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

130 series — Mobile 

property fire

0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1

140 series — Natural 

vegetation fire

1 3 1 0 5 0 33 11

150 series — Outside 

rubbish fire

0 6 2 0 0 0 6 1

160 series — Special 

outside fire

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Responding fire departments

The Ventura and Los Angeles County fire departments reported the most incidents due to the wildfire (Table 54). 

A total of 29 departments reported incidents related to the wildfire, including departments from Arizona, Nevada 

and Washington. The Woolsey fire started a couple of hours after another wildfire, the Hill wildfire, also in the Santa 

Susana mountains. It also started on the same day as the Camp wildfire in Northern California, which also required 

aid resources. The after-action report created for the Los Angeles County Fire Department noted that in the early 

hours of the fire, approximately half of the requests for fire engines, helicopters and tankers could not be filled 

because of resource constraints.43

Table 54: Woolsey responding fire departments

Top 10 departments Primary Aid Given

State FDID Fire department name Nov. 8 After Nov. 8 Nov. 8 After Nov. 8

Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other

CA 56020 Ventura County Fire Department 8 72 36 1,046 0 0 4 2

CA 19110 Los Angeles County Fire Department 0 24 8 351 1 0 0 2

CA 19105 Los Angeles City Fire Department 2 8 34 199 1 0 1 0

CA 56010 Oxnard Fire Department 0 3 4 56 0 0 0 2

CA 56025 Ventura Fire Department 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

CA 56555 CAL FIRE Ventura 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

CA 19165 San Gabriel Fire Department 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0

CA 15010 Kern County Fire Department 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

CA 19100 Long Beach Fire Department 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

CA 19200 Torrance Fire Department 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

All Others 0 1 1 2 0 0 13 3

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

43Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-AfterAction-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 63

Exposures

None of the fires reported in NFIRS were reported as exposures from other fires.

Completeness of NFIRS reporting

Completeness is a measure of how many NFIRS reports contained valid, known values for all data elements in 

the Basic, Fire and Wildland Fire modules. For the Woolsey wildfire, the overall completeness of the Basic and Fire 

modules was similar regardless of location. The completeness metric for the Wildland Fire module declined with 

distance (Table 55).

Table 55: Woolsey completeness of NFIRS reporting

Module Metric Within 

Boundary

Within 

Buffer

Beyond 

Buffer Overall

Basic module Number of reports 213 1,475 213 1,901

% valid and known 64 64 66 64

Fire module Number of reports 8 60 14 82

% valid and known 20 17 19 17

Wildland Fire module Number of reports 1 2 3 6

% valid and known 12 10 6 8

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Selected NFIRS data elements

For the 128 fires reported in NFIRS associated with the Woolsey wildfire, Table 56 shows the most common values for 

selected data elements from the Basic module. ACT_TAK1, INC_TYPE and PROP_USE contain a fair degree of variation.

Table 56: Woolsey selected NFIRS data elements, Basic module

Variable Description Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

ACT_TAK1 Actions 

Taken #1

55 11 Extinguishment by 

fire service 

personnel

15 10 Fire control 

or extinguishment, other

11 86 Investigate

ACT_TAK2 Actions 

Taken #2

102 (blank) 7 12 Salvage and 

overhaul

3 11 Extinguishment by 

fire service 

personnel

ACT_TAK3 Actions 

Taken #3

114 (blank) 3 12 Salvage and 

overhaul

3 16 Control fire 

(wildland)

CONT_

LOSS

Contents 

Loss

76 0 41 (blank) 2 100

HAZ_REL Hazardous 

Material 

Released

79 (blank) 49 N No hazmat 

involved

INC_TYPE Incident Type 27 142 Brush or 

brushand-grass 

mixture fire

21 100 Fire, other 15 141 Forest, 

woods or 

wildland fire
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 64

Table 56: Woolsey selected NFIRS data elements, Basic module (continued)

Variable Description Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

MIXED_

USE

Mixed Use 123 (blank) 3 40 Residential 

use

2 NN Not mixed 

use

PROP_

LOSS

Property 

Loss

74 0 34 (blank) 4 2000

PROP_USE Property Use 22 931 Open land or 

field

19 419 One- or 

two-family 

dwelling

13 (blank)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

The NFIRS Fire module was submitted for 82 incidents, and the NFIRS Wildland Fire module was submitted for an 

additional 6 incidents. Neither module was required for 27 incidents because the incident was reported as Aid Given 

(where no corresponding Aid Receiving report was identified), and both modules were missing for 13 incidents where 

either should have been reported.

Table 57 shows the most-commonly reported values for select variables from the Fire module, based on the 82 

incidents for which it was reported. The values for many of the variables are undetermined, none and other.

Table 57: Woolsey selected NFIRS data elements, Fire module

Variable Description Most common Second most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

AREA_ORIG Area of Origin 31 UU Undetermined 12 90 Outside area, other

CAUSE_IGN Cause of Ignition 30 2 Unintentional 24 U Cause 

undetermined 

after investigation

FACT_IGN_1 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #1

32 UU Undetermined 18 NN None

FACT_IGN_2 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #2

4 12 Heat source too close 

to combustibles

FIRE_SPRD Fire Spread 7 4 Confined to building 

of origin

3 2 Confined to room 

of origin

FIRST_IGN Item First Ignited 43 UU Undetermined 9 72 Light vegetation - 

not crop, including 

grass

HEAT_SOURC Heat Source 39 UU Undetermined 16 43 Hot ember or ash

STRUC_STAT Structure Status 8 2 In normal use

STRUC_TYPE Structure Type 8 1 Enclosed building 1 0 Structure type, 

other

SUP_FAC_1 Suppression Factors #1 2 NNN None

SUP_FAC_2 Suppression Factors #2 1 711 Drought or low fuel 

moisture

SUP_FAC_3 Suppression Factors #3 1 775 Urban-wildland 

interface area

TYPE_MAT Type of Material 30 UU Undetermined 24 (blank)

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 65

Table 58 shows selected variables from the Wildland Fire module for the 6 incidents where the module was submitted.

Table 58: Woolsey selected NFIRS data elements, Wildland Fire module

Variable Description

Most common Second most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

AREA_TYPE Area Type 4 4 Urbanwildland 

interface area

2 2 Urban, heavily 

populated 

areas

FACT_IGN1 Factors Contributing 

to Ignition #1

4 UU Undetermined 1 71 Exposure fire

FIRE_CAUSE Wildland Fire Cause 6 U Undetermined n/a n/a n/a

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

The NFIRS reports for the Woolsey wildfire do not provide a comprehensive view of the impact of the fire. A plurality 

of fire incident reports associated with the Woolsey wildfire are for natural vegetation fires, but most of the losses 

from the event are from structure fires. The number of fire incident reports is very small relative to the number 

of destroyed and damaged structures, and the value of property and contents losses reported in NFIRS is a small 

fraction of public estimates. 

Wildland urban interface

Over one-third of the area burned by the Woolsey fire was WUI. However, most of the NFIRS-reported fires for the 

Woolsey fire were from within 10 kilometers of the wildfire boundary (Table 59). Very few of the NFIRS-reported fires 

were for structures. As depicted in the incident map, significant areas of WUI for the Woolsey fire are direct protection 

areas for federal and state authorities, which do not report to the NFIRS. 

Table 59: Woolsey fires inside/outside of WUI

Location

Fires Structure fires

Number % of total Number % of total

In WUI, Within Boundary 12 9.4 3 13.0

Outside WUI, Within Boundary 2 1.6 1 4.3

Within Buffer 87 68.0 15 11.7

Beyond Buffer 27 21.1 4 3.1

Total 128 100.0 23 100.0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC and University of Wisconsin-Madison data.

Camp, California (Northern), 201844

The Camp wildfire started early in the morning of Nov. 8, 2018, due to a downed power line.45 High winds rapidly 

pushed the fire through the town of Paradise, California, causing extensive loss of life and property. The Camp wildfire 

is the deadliest in California history with 85 confirmed fatalities. It eventually consumed over 153,000 acres before 

being completely contained on Nov. 25, 2018 (Figure 12).

Most (84%) of the NFIRS incidents associated with the Camp fire provided sufficient location information to be 

geocoded to an address. Most of the remaining incidents were geocoded to the center of a ZIP code (14%) or named 

44See Appendix A for information regarding additional NFIRS-reported incidents that may be related to the Camp wildfire.

45Gabbert, B. (2019, May 16). CAL FIRE confirms — the Camp fire that destroyed most of Paradise, CA was started by a PG&E powerline. Wildfire 

Today. https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/05/16/cal-fire-confirms-the-camp-fire-that-destroyed-most-of-paradise-ca-was-started-by-a-pge-powerline/ 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 66

street (2%). Because geocodes were used to determine which incidents were associated with the wildfire and where 

they were located in relation to the wildfire boundary, the imprecision of geocoding should be considered when 

examining the event.

Figure 12: Camp cumulative acres burned and fires reported by date

0

11/8/1811/9/18

11/10/1811/11/1811/12/1811/13/1811/14/1811/15/1811/16/1811/17/1811/18/1811/19/1811/20/1811/21/18

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

80

70

60

Acres burned

Cumulative fires reported

Acres burned Cumulative fires reported

Camp, 2018

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data; National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number 

CA-BTU-016737. https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

Figure 13 is a map of the area affected by the Camp wildfire. WUI areas comprise nearly one-quarter of the affected 

area, but most of the reported incidents are clustered to the west of the fire boundary, in and around the city of 

Chico, California.

Within the fire boundary, the local direct protection area covering the town of Paradise, California, is clearly visible 

in the center of the image. A number of NFIRS incidents were reported in this area.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 67

Figure 13: Camp wildfire

39.4°N

39.5°N

39.6°N

39.7°N

39.8°N

39.9°N

40°N

122°W 121.8°W 121.6°W 121.4°W 121.2°W

Longitude

Latitude

WUI Classification

WUI Interface: 1.9%

WUI Intermix: 23.91%

Non−Vegetated 

Low and very low housing density: 0.34%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

No housing: 45.3%

Vegetated/Agriculture 

Very low housing density: 27.95%

Water: 0.61%

Lines and Points

Fire Boundary

10 km Buffer

Federal Lands

County Line

Local Protection Area

NFIRS Fire

NFIRS Other

Camp, 2018

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S. Census and BLM data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 68

Losses

Table 60 summarizes the losses from the Camp fire from both public sources and from the NFIRS incidents that were 

determined to be associated with this event.

Table 60: Camp loss metrics

Metric Public 

sources

ICS-209a

NFIRS 

Within 

Boundary

NFIRS 

Within 

Buffer

NFIRS 

Beyond 

Buffer

Deaths 85b 85 0 0 0

Injuries 13c 3 8 1 0

Dollar losses $8.47 Bd n/a $430 K $398 K $0

Imputed dollar losses n/a n/a $446 K $431 K $0

Acres burned 153,336e 153,336 153,020 455,674 0

Structures damaged or destroyed 18,793f 19,531 n/a n/a n/a

Fire incidents n/a n/a 18 49 0

Nonfire incidents n/a n/a 34 697 18

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

a

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident Number CA-BTU-016737. https://

famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

b

CAL FIRE. (2019, November 15). 2018 Incident Archive — Camp Fire. www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/camp-fire/ c

Sernoffsky, E. (2018, November 15). Five firefighters among dozen-plus patients burned in Camp fire. San Francisco Chronicle. www.sfchronicle.

com/california-wildfires/article/Five-firefighters-among-dozen-plus-patients-13396604.php

d

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

e

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/

News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

f

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/Newsand-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

Public sources for casualties from the Camp wildfire have the benefit of being able to compare and integrate data 

from multiple sources. The final number of deaths took some time to determine, as victims had to be discovered 

and identified. The number of injuries, even from public sources, may be understated as the death toll received 

considerably more attention. The 9 injuries reported in NFIRS were all for firefighters.

Similarly, the public estimate of dollar losses has the benefit of extensive analysis by authoritative sources and reflects 

only direct property and contents losses. Estimates from the insurance industry include indirect losses and range 

from $11 billion46 to $16.5 billion.47 The number of damaged and destroyed structures is similarly authoritative. The 

67 fires reported in NFIRS is a very small number compared to the number of affected structures.

The Camp wildfire burned 153,336 acres. Figures from NFIRS are derived from multiple incident reports that reported 

a similar figure.

NFIRS data for the wildfire

There are 816 incident reports in the NFIRS associated with the Camp fire. 111 incidents, including 43 fires, were 

reported on the first day of the wildfire when most of the casualties and property losses occurred (Table 61). 64% of 

the fire incidents reported in the NFIRS occurred on the first day of the wildfire. The majority of incidents associated 

with the Camp fire were EMS incidents that occurred outside the wildfire boundary itself but within 10 kilometers of 

the active wildfire area and were reported after the first day of the wildfire.

Given the large loss of life and property associated with the Camp wildfire, it is notable that only 3% of NFIRS incident 

reports are from within the wildfire boundary on the first day of the wildfire. Fire departments that do not participate 

in NFIRS (including federal and state agencies as well as local departments) may have responded to more incidents 

than were recorded in the NFIRS. 

46Holland, E. (2018, November 28). $6 billion in real estate destroyed in Woolsey fire: Report. patch.com/california/malibu/6-billion-real-estatedestroyed-woolsey-fire-report

47Reyes-Velarde, A. (2019, January 11). California’s Camp fire was the costliest global disaster last year, insurance report shows. Los Angeles Times.

www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-camp-fire-insured-losses-20190111-story.html
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 69

Table 61: Camp reported incidents by type, date and location

Location Date Fire Explosion EMS Hazmat Service Good 

Intent

False 

Alarm Weather Special Total

All 

associated

incidents

11/8/2018 43 0 35 2 10 7 7 1 6 111

11/9/2018-11/25/2018 24 1 443 27 80 49 76 2 3 705

Within 

Boundary

11/8/2018 12 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 4 26

11/9/2018-11/25/2018 6 0 9 3 3 0 2 2 1 26

Within 

Buffer

11/8/2018 31 0 30 2 6 5 7 1 2 84

11/9/2018-11/25/2018 18 1 423 23 76 47 72 0 2 662

Beyond 

Buffer

11/8/2018 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

11/9/2018-11/25/2018 0 0 11 1 1 2 2 0 0 17

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Of the 67 fires reported in NFIRS associated with the Camp wildfire, 48 (71.6%) were natural vegetation fires, 7 were 

structure fires, and the remaining were a mixture of incident types (Table 62).

Table 62: Camp fire incidents by Incident Type and location

Incident Type

Within Boundary Within Buffer

11/8/2018 11/9/2018-

11/25/2018 11/8/2018 11/9/2018-11/25/2018

100 — Fire, other 1 0 1 1

110 series — Structure fire 0 2 0 5

120 series — Fire in mobile property used as 

a fixed structure

0 0 0 1

130 series — Mobile property fire 0 0 3 1

140 series — Natural vegetation fire 10 4 26 8

150 series — Outside rubbish fire 0 0 1 2

160 series — Special outside fire 1 0 0 0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

The property use associated with 27 fires was either omitted or was reported as “None.” For 9 fires, the property use 

was open field or vacant lot. 10 fires were reported on residential property including 8 in one- or two-family dwellings 

and 2 in other kinds of residential property (Table 63).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 70

Table 63: Camp fire incidents by property use

Incident Type Assembly

One- or 

two-family 

dwelling

Other 

residential Business Industrial Outside/special Unknown

100 — Fire, other 1 0 2

110 series — Structure fire 5 2 0

120 series — Fire in mobile 

property used as a fixed structure

1 0

130 series — Mobile property fire 0 3 1

140 series — Natural vegetation fire 3 1 1 19 24

150 series — Outside rubbish fire 0 3

160 series — Special outside fire 1 0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Responding fire departments

The Chico, California and Butte County fire departments reported the most incidents related to the Camp wildfire 

(Table 64). A total of 56 departments submitted NFIRS reports for the fire, including departments from Colorado, 

Nevada, Oregon and Texas.

Table 64: Camp responding fire departments

Top 10 departments Primary Incident Type Aid Given Incident Type

State FDID Fire department name Nov. 8 After Nov. 8 Nov. 8 After Nov. 8

Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other Fires Other

CA 04010 Chico Fire Department 6 29 7 474 0 0 0 0

CA 04035 Butte County Fire Department 0 20 3 164 0 0 0 0

CA 04555 CAL FIRE Butte 0 2 4 18 0 0 0 0

CA 04030 Paradise Fire Department 0 7 2 5 0 0 0 0

CA 04015 Gridley Fire Department 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0

CA 16015 Kings County Fire Department 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0

CA 34020 Elk Grove Community Services District 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0

CA 39050 Manteca Fire Department 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0

CA 49115 Petaluma Fire Department 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1

CA 10005 Clovis Fire Department 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

All Others 1 2 1 4 26 6 3 5

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Exposures

None of the NFIRS-reported fires were reported as exposure fires from another incident.

Completeness of NFIRS reporting

Completeness is a measure of how many NFIRS reports contained valid, known values for all data elements in the 

Basic, Fire and Wildland Fire modules. For the Camp wildfire, the overall completeness of the Basic and Wildland Fire 

modules was best for incidents within 10 kilometers of the wildfire boundary. The completeness of the Fire module 

was highest for incidents within the wildfire boundary (Table 65).
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 71

Table 65: Camp completeness of NFIRS reporting

Module Metric Within 

Boundary

Within

Buffer

Beyond 

Buffer Overall

Basic module Number of reports 52 746 18 816

% valid and known 63 67 60 66

Fire module Number of reports 3 19 0 22

% valid and known 29 25 n/a 25

Wildland Fire module Number of Reports 1 3 0 4

% valid and known 23 32 n/a 30

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Selected NFIRS data elements

For the 67 fires reported in NFIRS associated with the Camp wildfire, Table 66 shows the most common values for 

selected data elements from the Basic module. Of note is that 43 of the fires were reported by departments giving 

aid. These fires are included in the analysis because there were no incident reports from other departments indicating 

that they were also combating a fire in the same area at the same time.

Table 66: Camp selected NFIRS data elements, Basic module

Variable Description Most common Second most common Third most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

ACT_TAK1 Actions Taken #1 23 11 Extinguishment by 

fire service 

personnel

14 10 Fire control 

or extinguishment, 

other

6 73 Provide 

manpower

ACT_TAK2 Actions Taken #2 43 (blank) 5 12 Salvage and 

overhaul

3 13 Establish 

fire lines 

(wildfire)

ACT_TAK3 Actions Taken #3 56 (blank) 3 12 Salvage and 

overhaul

2 86 Investigate

AID Aid Given or 

Received

39 3 Mutual aid 

given

20 N None 4 4 Automatic 

aid given

FF_INJ Fire Service 

Injuries

65 0 2 4

HAZ_REL Hazardous 

Material 

Released

34 N No hazmat 

involved

32 (blank) 1 6 Household/ 

office 

solvent or 

chemical 

spill

INC_TYPE Incident Type 39 141 Forest, 

woods or 

wildland 

fire

6 140 Natural 

vegetation 

fire, other

5 111 Building 

fire

PROP_USE Property Use 25 (blank) 8 419 One- or 

two-family 

dwelling

8 900 Outside 

or special 

property, 

other

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 72

The NFIRS Fire module was submitted for 22 incidents, and the NFIRS Wildland Fire module was submitted for an 

additional 4 incidents. Neither module was required for 41 incidents because the incident was reported as Aid Given 

(where no corresponding Aid Receiving report was identified). (1 department giving aid submitted a Fire module, and 

1 department giving aid submitted a Wildland Fire module.)

Table 67 shows the most commonly reported values for select variables from the Fire module, based on the 22 

incidents for which it was reported. The values for many of the variables are undetermined, none and other. The 

Factors Contributing to Ignition #2 and Fire Spread variables suggest that some of the fires may not have been 

associated with the Camp wildfire despite meeting the criteria used to identify them. 

Table 67: Camp selected NFIRS data elements, Fire module

Variable Variable description

Most common Second most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

AREA_ORIG Area of Origin 7 UU Undetermined 3 90 Outside area, other

CAUSE_IGN Cause of Ignition 5 U Cause 

undetermined 

after 

investigation

4 1 Intentional

FACT_IGN_1 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #1

8 UU Undetermined 5 NN None

FACT_IGN_2 Factors Contributing To 

Ignition #2

21 n/a 1 40 Design, 

manufacture, 

installation 

deficiency, other

FIRE_SPRD Fire Spread 2 2 Confined to 

room of origin

2 4 Confined to 

building of origin

FIRST_IGN Item First Ignited 8 UU Undetermined 2 17 Structural member 

or framing

HEAT_SOURC Heat Source 10 UU Undetermined 3 13 Electrical arcing

STRUC_STAT Structure Status 16 n/a 5 2 In normal use

STRUC_TYPE Structure Type 5 1 Enclosed 

building

1 2 Fixed portable or 

mobile structure

SUP_FAC_1 Suppression Factors #1 16 n/a 6 NNN None

SUP_FAC_2 Suppression Factors #2 22 n/a n/a n/a n/a

SUP_FAC_3 Suppression Factors #3 22 n/a n/a n/a n/a

TYPE_MAT Type of Material 10 UU Undetermined 8 n/a

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

Table 68 displays selected variables from the Wildland Fire module for the 4 incidents where the module was submitted.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 73

Table 68: Camp selected NFIRS data elements, Wildland Fire module

Variable Description

Most common Second most common

Incidents Code Definition Incidents Code Definition

AREA_TYPE Area Type 2 4 Urbanwildland 

interface area

1 1 Rural, 

including 

farms > 50 

acres

1 3 Rural/urban 

or suburban

DANGR_RATE Fire Danger Rating 3 n/a 1 3 High fire 

danger

FACT_IGN1 Factors Contributing to 

Ignition #1

2 NN None 2 UU Undetermined

FIRE_CAUSE Wildland Fire Cause 3 U Undetermined 1 5 Debris, 

vegetation 

burn

HEAT_SOURC Heat Source 3 UU Undetermined 1 65 Lighter: 

cigarette, cigar

SUPP_FACT1 Fire Suppression Factors #1 3 NNN None 1 412 Delayed 

reporting of 

fire

SUPP_FACT2 Fire Suppression Factors #2 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a

SUPP_FACT3 Fire Suppression Factors #3 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

There are not many NFIRS reports for incidents associated with the Camp wildfire, especially compared to the scale 

of the damage that occurred. NFIRS reports related to fires reflect a combination of structure and natural vegetation 

fires, but required and nonrequired variables do not provide much additional detail. 

Wildland urban interface

Slightly more than one-quarter of the area burned by the Camp fire was WUI (Table 69). However, most of the 

NFIRS-reported fires for the Camp fire were from within 10 kilometers of the wildfire boundary. Very few of the 

NFIRS-reported fires were for structures. As depicted in the incident map, significant areas of WUI for the Camp fire 

are direct protection areas for federal and state authorities, which do not report to the NFIRS. 

Table 69: Camp fires inside/outside of WUI

Location

Fires Structure fires

Number % of total Number % of total

In WUI, Within Boundary 17 25.4 2 25.0

Outside WUI, Within Boundary 1 1.5 0 0.0

Within Buffer 49 73.1 6 75.0

Beyond Buffer 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 67 100.0 8 100.0

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS, NIFC and University of Wisconsin-Madison data.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 74

Appendix A: Incidents in Expanded Time Range

In addition to the incidents in the preceding discussion, NFIRS contains some incidents that began before the time the 

wildfire was reported as well as incidents that ended after the wildfire was contained. For the following incidents, the 

ignition date and time is 6 hours earlier than the preceding analysis, and the containment/extinguishment date and 

time is the latest value for LU_CLEAR (Last Unit Cleared) reported by any fire department that reported an incident 

within the first 24 hours of the wildfire, or the original containment/extinguishment date, whichever is later. 

Chimney Tops 2

Original time range: Nov. 23, 2016, at 5:30 p.m. to Dec. 22, 2016, at 11:59 p.m.

New time range: Nov. 23, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. to Dec. 22, 2016, at 11:59 p.m.

1 fire, a grass fire (INC_TYPE 143), was reported at 3:51 p.m. on Nov. 23, 2016, at a location approximately 17 miles 

north-northwest of the wildfire’s point of origin. This point is within the 10-kilometer buffer of the eventual wildfire 

perimeter, but it is unlikely to be related to the wildfire.

4 other incidents, including 2 EMS incidents (medical assistance, INC_TYPE 311; and vehicle accident without injuries, 

INC_TYPE 324), 1 Service Call (service call, other, INC_TYPE 500), and 1 false alarm (false alarm, other, INC_TYPE 700) 

were reported between 11:37 a.m. and 4:43 p.m. on Nov. 23, 2016. All of these incidents were within the 10-kilometer 

buffer of the wildfire perimeter.

Northwest Oklahoma Complex

Original time range: March 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. to March 21, 2017, at 7:00 a.m.

New time range: March 6, 2017, at 4:00 a.m. to March 21, 2017, at 7:00 a.m.

No additional incidents were reported during the expanded time range for this wildfire.

West Mims

Original time range: April 6, 2017, at 12:00 a.m. to June 11, 2017, at 11:59 p.m.

New time range: April 5, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. to June 11, 2017, at 11:59 p.m.

No additional incidents were reported during the expanded time range for this wildfire.

Spring Creek

Original time range: June 27, 2018, at 12:00 a.m. to Sept. 10, 2018, at 11:59 p.m.

New time range: June 26, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. to Sept. 10, 2018, at 11:59 p.m.

No additional incidents were reported during the expanded time range for this wildfire.

Woolsey

Original time range: Nov. 8, 2018, at 2:15 p.m. to Nov. 21, 2018, at 11:59 p.m.

New time range: Nov. 8, 2018, at 8:15 a.m. to Nov. 21, 2018, at 11:59 p.m.

4 fires were reported in the expanded time range: 

ĵ 10:42 a.m. (natural vegetation fire, other, INC_TYPE 140).

ĵ 11:41 a.m. (brush or brush and grass mixture fire, INC_TYPE 142).

ĵ 12:38 p.m. (outside rubbish, trash or waste fire, INC_TYPE 151).

ĵ 12:59 p.m. (brush or brush and grass mixture fire, INC_TYPE 142). 
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 75

They occurred between 5 and 13 miles from the point of origin within the 10-kilometer buffer surrounding the wildfire 

perimeter. These fires are unlikely to be related to the wildfire.

47 other incidents were reported in the area of the wildfire in the expanded time range. Of these, 3 occurred within 

the wildfire perimeter, 39 occurred within the 10-kilometer buffer of the wildfire perimeter, and 5 were reported by 

fire departments that participated in the response but did not contain sufficient location information to be geocoded 

other than to a ZIP code. 23 of these incidents were EMS incidents (INC_TYPE 300 to 381); 1 was a gas leak (natural gas 

or LPG, INC_TYPE 412); 4 were Service Calls (INC_TYPE 500 to 561); 15 were Good Intent Calls (INC_TYPE 600 to 672); 

and 4 were false alarms (INC_TYPE 700). These incidents are unlikely to be related to the wildfire.

Camp

Original time range: Nov. 8, 2018, at 6:30 a.m. to Nov. 25, 2018, at 11:59 p.m.

New time range: Nov. 8, 2018, at 12:30 a.m. to Dec. 20, 2018, at 9:24 a.m.

1 fire was reported at 6:29 a.m. on Nov. 8, 2018. This NFIRS report may be a summary of the overall Camp wildfire, 

as its LU_CLEAR (Last Unit Cleared) time is 9:24 a.m. on Dec. 20, 2018. (Note: The end of the original time range is 

the date that CAL FIRE reported that the wildfire was contained.) This NFIRS report included property and contents 

losses of $1,999,999,998 (the maximum value that may be entered for PROP_LOSS and CONT_LOSS is $999,999,999) 

as well as ACRES_BURN (NFIRS Wildland Fire module) of 153,336. The location of the fire was reported as near Pulga 

Road, northeast of Paradise, California, which was identified by CAL FIRE as the location where the fire began. No 

civilian or firefighter casualties were reported for this incident. The NFIRS report also indicates that the equipment 

involved in ignition (EQ_INV_IGN, NFIRS Wildland Fire module) was an electrical power (utility) line (EQ_INV_IGN 211).

8 other incidents were reported prior to the beginning of the original time range. 5 were EMS incidents (INC_TYPE 

300 to 381), 2 were hazardous materials incidents (INC_TYPE 400 to 482), and 1 was a report of a smoke scare, or an 

odor of smoke (INC_TYPE 651). These incidents are unlikely to be related to the wildfire.

6 fires and 9 other incidents were reported after the beginning of the original time range but had a LU_CLEAR (Last 

Unit Cleared) time that was after the end of the original time range, so they were not included in the analysis. These 

incidents are summarized in Table 70.

Table 70. Additional Camp fire incident in expanded time range

Incident Type Alarm Last unit 

cleared Casualties Dollar losses

Other 

information

142 (Brush or brush-and-grass 

mixture fire)

11/08/2018 

11:22 a.m.

11/28/2018 

10:36 a.m.

4 firefighter 

injuries

$1000 

(imputed)

800 (Severe Weather or Natural 

Disaster, other)

11/08/2018 

12:33 a.m.

12/07/2018 

2:10 p.m.

None None

141 (Forest, woods or wildland fire) 11/08/2018 

1:00 p.m.

11/26/2018 

10:00 p.m.

None $1000 

(imputed)

141 (Forest, woods or wildland fire) 11/08/2018 

4:22 p.m.

11/26/2018 

10:57 a.m.

None $1000 

(imputed)

141 (Forest, woods or wildland fire) 11/08/2018 

6:26 p.m.

11/26/2018 

2:30 p.m.

None $1000 

(imputed)

141 (Forest, woods or wildland fire) 11/09/2018 

5:26 a.m.

11/26/2018 

10:00 p.m.

None $1000 

(imputed)

153,000 acres 

burned

900 (Special Type of Incident, other) 11/09/2018 

11:16 a.m.

12/04/2018 

8:06 a.m.

None None
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 76

Table 70. Additional Camp fire incident in expanded time range (continued)

Incident Type Alarm

Last unit 

cleared Casualties Dollar losses

Other 

information

141 (Forest, woods or wildland fire) 11/09/2018 

11:16 a.m.

12/04/2018 

8:06 a.m.

None $1000 

(imputed)

340 (Search for lost person, other) 11/17/2018 

5:00 a.m.

11/26/2018 

10:00 p.m.

None None Within the 

wildfire 

perimeter

350 (Extrication, rescue, other) 11/17/2018 

5:30 a.m.

11/26/2018 

10:00 p.m.

None None

341 (Search for person on land) 11/22/2018 

3:11 p.m.

11/27/2018 

5:34 p.m.

None None

341 (Search for person on land) 11/23/2018 

1:45 a.m.

11/26/2018 

11:00 a.m.

None None

571 (Cover assignment, standby, 

moveup)

11/23/2018 

3:45 a.m.

11/26/2018 

1:17 p.m.

None None

551 (Assist police or other 

governmental agency)

11/23/2018 

4:52 a.m.

11/27/2018 

8:25 p.m.

None None

321 (EMS call, excluding vehicle 

accident with injury)

11/25/2018 

11:49 p.m.

11/26/2018 

12:09 a.m.

None None

Sources: USFA analysis of NFIRS and NIFC data.

8 of these incidents, including 6 fires, were reported within the first 2 days of the wildfire, and 12, including 5 fires, 

reported their Last Unit Cleared within 3 days of the original end date of the wildfire. Only 1 incident was reported 

within the wildfire perimeter; the remaining incidents occurred within the 10-kilometer buffer surrounding the wildfire 

perimeter. Property and contents losses were not reported for any of these fires, but imputed losses total $6,000. 1 

NFIRS report indicated that 4 firefighters were injured; another reported 153,000 acres burned. 

20 fires and 1,039 other incidents were reported after the CAL FIRE containment date of Nov. 25, 2018. It is possible, 

but not likely, that these fires were related to the wildfire — the earliest of the fires was reported on Nov. 29, 2018. 

However, it is plausible that some of the nonfire incidents may have been related to the aftermath of the wildfire; 

709 of the 1,039 other incidents were EMS incidents, 35 were hazardous material incidents, and 290 were Service 

Call, Good Intent or false alarm incidents.

Additional recommendations

The USFA should provide a way for fire departments to submit incident reports that are summaries of large events 

such as wildfires. This could be accomplished through the use of the Special Study blocks in the NFIRS incident report, 

or through the creation of 1 or more distinct Incident Types (in the 900 series, Special Type of Incident, other) that 

could be used to distinguish an NFIRS report as a summary of a large event.

The USFA should also modify the NFIRS specification to allow entry of values for PROP_LOSS and CONT_LOSS greater 

than $999,999,999. 

Finally, the USFA should consider an exploration of the types of incidents that occur after a wildfire and the impact 

that these requests have on local fire departments. The volume of requests for service after the containment date 

of the Camp wildfire is noteworthy, and further exploration may yield valuable insights for communities in areas 

prone to wildfire.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 77

Appendix B: Correspondence with Responding Fire Departments

USFA contacted some of the fire departments that reported incidents related to wildfires via email to gather additional 

information regarding how those incidents were reported to NFIRS. The questions and answers are reproduced below.

Chimney Tops 2, Gatlinburg Fire Department (TN 78113)

For the Chimney Tops 2 fire, your department reported many exposure fires. How was this data collected? Was 

your department being alerted to or responding to each exposure incident as it occurred or was the data compiled 

afterward? If compiled afterwards, from what sources?

The data for the exposure fires were collected afterwards. Once the fires were out, we sent crews out to the 

area to see the extent of the damage. We were not dispatched on each incident because our dispatch wasn’t 

notified of every incident due to evacuations. Using maps, we were able to show the fire path and mark what 

structures were damaged or destroyed. We used this information to compile and generate a report of the fire. 

Did the wildfire cause interruptions in your dispatch and record management (fire incident data) systems? If yes, how 

did this impact your ability to capture records in NFIRS?

The fire did cause interruption with our dispatch and fire records. The power and internet service was out 

for several days. We kept a log of our runs during this time. Once services were restored, we were able to use 

these logs to get our reports completed.

Does your fire department respond to all wildfires in your jurisdiction? If not, who does?

We respond to all wildfires in our jurisdiction except for wildfires inside the National Park. We provide medical 

services for the National Park but they have their own fire services.

Does your fire department report all wildfires in your jurisdiction? If not, who does and by what method?

We report all wildfires in our jurisdiction. 

Northwest Oklahoma Complex, Ashland Fire (KS CA402)

For the Northwest Oklahoma Complex fire, your department reported many exposure fires. How was this data 

collected? Was your department being alerted to or responding to each exposure incident as it occurred or was the 

data compiled afterward? If compiled afterwards, from what sources?

Did the wildfire cause interruptions in your dispatch and record management (fire incident data) systems? If yes, how 

did this impact your ability to capture records in NFIRS?

I have only been the fire chief for about 8 months. I’m not sure about your first 2 questions.

Does your fire department respond to all wildfires in your jurisdiction? If not, who does?

We do respond to all wildfires in our district. 

Does your fire department report all wildfires in your jurisdiction? If not, who does and by what method?

I also reported all fires in the NFIRS system.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 78

Woolsey, Los Angeles County Fire Department (CA 19110)

Did the wildfire cause interruptions in your dispatch and record management (fire incident data) systems? No. If yes, 

how did this impact your ability to capture records in NFIRS?

Does your fire department respond to all wildfires in your jurisdiction? Yes. If not, who does? 

The Department responds to all fires within our local Direct Protection Area and State Responsibility Area 

as a contract county for CALFIRE. The United States Forest Service responds to wildfires on federal land, but 

we are responsible for emergency medical responses, structure fires, vehicle fires, etc.

Does your fire department report all wildfires in your jurisdiction? Yes. If not, who does and by what method?

Camp, Butte CFD (CA 04555)

Did the wildfire cause interruptions in your dispatch and record management (fire incident data) systems? If yes, how 

did this impact your ability to capture records in NFIRS?

No it did not.

Does your fire department respond to all wildfires in your jurisdiction? If not, who does?

All areas except within the city limits of Oroville and Chico.

Does your fire department report all wildfires in your jurisdiction? If not, who does and by what method?

Report as in an NFIRS report? If so, then yes we do report them.
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 79

Bibliography

10News Staff. (2020, September 9). Judge rules lawsuits against federal government in 2016 wildfire disaster can 

continue. 10News. https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/wildfire/victims-insurance-companies-square-offagainst-government-in-2016-wildfire-lawsuits/51-599a8127-dd70-4f93-81b0-4261022e1f132016 Great Smoky 

Mountains wildfires. (2020, October 22). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Great_

Smoky_Mountains_wildfires&oldid=992414213

Ahillen, S. (2017, August 9). Tennessee mountain community getting back on its feet after devastating wildfire. 

Insurance Journal. www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2017/08/09/460619.htm

Assessor, Forbes Park, Costilla County, Colorado. (2018, July 5). F.P. Final Damage Assessment — July 5 Notification. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XVWySYeV-Jp_VuLc6qIt4z3baj9g_IWQ/view

Associated Press. (2017, March 7). Officials: Harper County woman died while fighting fire on her farm. Fox 25. okcfox.

com/news/local/officials-harper-county-woman-died-while-fighting-fire-on-her-farm

Badger, S. G. (2017, November, December). Large-loss fires in the United States in 2016. NFPA Journal. https://www.

nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-Media/NFPA-Journal/2017/November-December-2017/Features/

Large-Loss-Fires-2016

Badger, S. G., & Foley, M. (2019, September 1). Large-loss fires and explosions in the United States during 2018. 

NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/NovemberDecember-2019/Features/Large-Loss

Bates, C. (n.d.). Wildfire damage assessment for the West Mims fire. Georgia Forestry Commission. https://gatrees.org/

wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Wildfire-Damage-Assessment-for-the-West-Mims-Fire.pdf

Bivand, R. S., Pebesma, E., & Gómez-Rubio, V. (2013). Applied spatial data analysis with R (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag. 

https://asdar-book.org/

Bivand, R., Keitt, T., Rowlingson, B., Pebesma, E., Summer, M., Hijmans, R., Baston, D., Rouault, E., Warmerdam, F., 

Ooms, J., & Rundel, C. (2019, September 16). rgdal: Bindings for the ‘Geospatial’ Data Abstraction Library. R package 

version 1.4-8. CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal

Brown, J., & Blevins, J. (2018, November 1). Wildfires in Colorado cost $130 million in 2018. Here are the details, down 

to the $40 daily rate on portable toilets. The Colorado Sun. https://coloradosun.com/2018/11/01/wildfire-costscolorado-2018/

CAL FIRE. (2019, November 15). 2018 Incident Archive — Camp Fire. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/camp-fire/

CAL FIRE. (2019, October 25). 2018 Incident Archive — Woolsey Fire. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/

woolsey-fire/

CAL FIRE. (n.d.). Fire progression map: Camp incident: CA-BTU-016737: Final. https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/10167/

progression_e_land_final_20181124_camp_cabtu016737_opt.pdf

Carr, A. (2016, December 4). Gatlinburg residents get first look at destruction left behind by wildfire. The Weather 

Channel. https://weather.com/news/news/tennessee-gatlinburg-sevier-fires

Citygate Associates, LLC. (2019, November 17). After action review of the Woolsey fire incident. https://lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/Citygate-After-Action-Review-of-the-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-11-17-19.pdf

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 10). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1110PM.pdf
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 80

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 11). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1111PM.pdf

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 12). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1112PM.pdf

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 13). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1113PM.pdf

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 14). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1114PM.pdf

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 15). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1115PM.pdf

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 17). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1117PM.pdf

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2018, November 18). Woolsey fire incident update. fire.lacounty.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOOLSEY1118PM.pdf

County of Ventura California. (2020, January). The Hill & Woolsey fires emergency response after-action review. vcportal.

ventura.org/BOS/District2/Hill_Woolsey_Fires_Emergency_Response_After_Action_Review_01.21.2020.pdf

Craddock, M. (2018, July 26). Property losses in Huerfano County top $8.2 million from Spring fire. World Journal.

worldjournalnewspaper.com/property-losses-in-huerfano-county-top-8-2-million-from-spring-fire/

The Denver Channel. (2018, July 4). Spring fire now the 3rd largest in Colorado history at more than 94,000 acres. 

www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/spring-fire-now-the-3rd-largest-in-colorado-history-at-morethan-94-000-acres

Dickson, T. (2017, June 22). West Mims fire is out, Okefenokee Swamp returns to normal after heavy rains. Florida 

Times-Union Jacksonville.com: https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2017/06/22/west-mims-fire-outokefenokee-swamp-returns-normal-after-heavy-rains/15760617007/

Dowle, M., Srinivasan, A., Gorecki, J., Chirico, M., Stetsenko, P., Short, T., Lianoglou, S., Antonyan, E., Bonsch, M., 

Parsonage, H., Ritchie, S., Ren, K., Tan, X., Saporta, R., Seiskari, O., Dong, X., Lang, M., Iwasaki, W., Wenchel, 

S., ... Shwen, B. (2019). data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame’. R package version 1.12.8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/

package=data.table

Foley, M. (2019, November, December). The high cost of wildfire in 2018. NFPA Journal. https://www.nfpa.org/Newsand-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/November-December-2019/Features/Large-Loss/

Wildfire-Sidebar

Frazier, I. (2018, October 29). The day the great plains burned. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/

magazine/2018/11/05/the-day-the-great-plains-burned 

Gabbert, B. (2018, July 4). Spring Creek fire becomes third largest in state history. Wildfire Today. https://wildfiretoday.

com/tag/spring-creek-fire/

Gabbert, B. (2018-2020). Camp fire (archives). Wildfire Today. https://wildfiretoday.com/tag/camp-fire/

Gabbert, B. (2019, May 16). CAL FIRE confirms — the Camp fire that destroyed most of Paradise, CA was started by 

a PG&E powerline. Wildfire Today. https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/05/16/cal-fire-confirms-the-camp-fire-thatdestroyed-most-of-paradise-ca-was-started-by-a-pge-powerline
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 81

Guthrie, V. H., Finucane, M. J., Keith, P. E., & Stinnett, D. B. (2017, December). After action review of the November 28, 

2016, firestorm. ABS Group. https://wildfiretoday.com/documents/AAR_ChimneyTops2.pdf

Holland, E. (2018, November 28). $6 billion in real estate destroyed in Woolsey fire: Report. Patch. https://patch.com/

california/malibu/6-billion-real-estate-destroyed-woolsey-fire-report

Jacobs, D. (2017, May 23). Park didn’t heed Gatlinburg firestorm ‘call to action’. Knox News. https://www.knoxnews.

com/story/news/local/2016/12/30/park-didnt-heed-gatlinburg-firestorm-call-action/95797456/

Kahle, D., & Wickham, H. (2019, June). ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal, 5(1), 144-161. https://

journal.r-project.org/archive/2013-1/kahle-wickham.pdf

Knoxville News Sentinel. (2016, December 28). By the numbers: Gatlinburg fire. Knox News. https://www.knoxnews.

com/story/news/local/tennessee/2016/12/28/numbers-gatlinburg-fire/95847766/

KOAA News5. (2018, September 10). Spring fire now officially 100 percent contained www.koaa.com/news/coveringcolorado/2018/09/10/spring-fire-now-officially-100-percent-contained/

Lakin, M. (2017, November 24). 1 year ago, a ‘whole mountain on fire’ forever changed Gatlinburg. Knox News. https://

www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2017/11/19/gatlinburg-wildfire-one-year-later-smoky-mountains-horrorheroism/859695001/

Lakin, M. (2017, November 22). Air attacks, big box couldn’t cage fire’s surge toward Gatlinburg. Knox News.

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2017/11/22/gatlinburg-wildfire-one-year-later-chimney-tops-pigeonforge/856268001/

Lakin, M. (2017, November 22). ‘No way out’: Sacrifice and survival in the final desperate hours of the Gatlinburg 

fire. Knox News. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2017/11/22/gatlinburg-wildfire-one-year-later-victimsdeaths-damage/856273001/

Lakin, M. (2017, November 24). ‘Like Armageddon’: How the Gatlinburg fire became unstoppable and swarmed a 

city. Knox News. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2017/11/22/gatlinburg-wildfire-one-year-later-911-callsevacuation-orders-communications-failures/856270001/

Lakin, M. (2017, November 24). Mountaintop spark, rising wind lit the fuse for Gatlinburg firestorm. Knox News. https://

www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2017/11/22/gatlinburg-wildfire-one-year-later-chimney-tops-trail/856267001

Legislative Division of Post Audit. (2018, June). Legislative post audit performance audit report highlights: Kansas 

wildfire management: Evaluating the adequacy of Kansas’ wildfire suppression system. State of Kansas. https://www.

kansasforests.org/fire_management/fire_docs/Highlights.pdf

Legislative Division of Post Audit. (2018, June). Performance audit report: Kansas wildfire management: Evaluating the 

adequacy of Kansas’ wildfire suppression system. State of Kansas. https://www.kansasforests.org/fire_management/

fire_docs/Final_Report.pdf

Lindley, T. T., Speheger, D. A., Day, M. A., Murdoch, G. P., Smith, B. R., Nauslar, N. J., & Daily, D. C. (2019, July 12). 

Megafires on the Southern Great Plains. Journal of Operational Meteorology, 7(12), 164-179. https://doi.org/10.15191/

nwajom.2019.0712

Minor, N. (2018, September 13). In the Spring Creek fire’s wake, heartbreak before a long recovery. CPR News. https://

www.cpr.org/2018/09/13/in-the-spring-creek-fires-wake-heartbreak-before-a-long-recovery/

Mitchell, K., & Nicholson, K. (2018, June 28). Hundreds evac ahead of fast-moving CO blaze. Firehouse. www.firehouse.

com/operations-training/wildland/news/21011450/forbes-park-costilla-county-co-spring-fire-evacuation-firefighters
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 82

Moran, J. (2017, April 22). March fires in Oklahoma. Gaylord News. https://gaylordnews.net/2566/newscrowd/marchfires-in-oklahoma/

Morrison, O. (2017, June 16). Damage from historic wildfires more than $80 million. The Wichita Eagle. https://www.

kansas.com/news/state/article156506309.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2017, April 26). West Mims fire on Florida/Georgia border. https://www.

nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2017/west-mims-fire-on-floridageorgia-border

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (n.d.). SIT/209 Historical [Data set]. Retrieved March 11, 

2021 from https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2017). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2016 [Data set]. Incident 

Number TN-GSP-016062. Retrieved March 11, 2021 from https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/

historicalSITdata

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident Number 

GA-OKR-017006. Retrieved March 11, 2021 from https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/historicalSITdata

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2018). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2017 [Data set]. Incident 

Number OK-OKS-000529. Retrieved March 11, 2021 from https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/

historicalSITdata

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident 

Number CA-BTU-016737. Retrieved March 11, 2021 from https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/

historicalSITdata

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident 

Number CA-VNC-091023. Retrieved March 11, 2021 from https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/

historicalSITdata

National Fire and Aviation Management Web Applications. (2019). SIT/209 Historical, CY 2018 [Data set]. Incident 

Number CO-CTX-001266. Retrieved March 11, 2021 from https://famit.nwcg.gov/applications/SIT209/

historicalSITdata

National Fire Protection Association. (2019, November, December). Selected large-loss fire incident reports. 

NFPA Journal. www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2019/NovemberDecember-2019/Features/Large-Loss/Large-Loss-incidents

National Interagency Fire Center. (2020, March 31). Interagency fire perimeter history – All years. data-nifc.opendata.

arcgis.com/datasets/interagency-fire-perimeter-history-all-years?geometry=-169.197%2C-9.831%2C74.978%2C74.202

National Interagency Fire Center. (n.d.). Spring Creek fire information: Fire progression. https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/

apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=d41a9791b0a24a05bcd5ec543c5aebec

National Park Service. (2016, December 22). Great Smoky Mountains: Chimney Tops 2 fire. https://www.nps.gov/

grsm/learn/chimney-tops-2-fire.htm

National Park Service. (2017, August 31). Chimney Tops 2 fire review: Individual fire review report. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Division of Fire and Aviation. https://www.wildfirelessons.net/HigherLogic/System/

DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=2291b1f9-d65a-4915-2257-d76919c16132&forceDialog=0

National Weather Service. (n.d.). West Mims fire 2017. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www.weather.

gov/jax/WestMimsFire_Apr_thru_Jul_2017
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 83

Oklahoma Forestry Services. (2017, March 19). Fire Situation report – March 19, 2017. Oklahoma Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Forestry. www.forestry.ok.gov/fire-situation-report-–-march-19-2017

Oklahoma Forestry Services. (2017, March 20). Fire Situation report – March 20, 2017. Oklahoma Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Forestry. www.forestry.ok.gov/fire-situation-report-–-march-20-2017

Oklahoma Forestry Services. (2017, March 21). Fire situation report – March 21, 2017. Oklahoma Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Forestry. www.forestry.ok.gov/fire-situation-report-–-march-21-2017

Oklahoma Farm Report. (2017, March 25). Oklahoma state extension says over sixteen million dollars in losses to 

agriculture as a result of Northwest Oklahoma Fire Complex. Radio Oklahoma Network. www.oklahomafarmreport.

com/wire/news/2017/03/01349_OSUExtensionCostEstimate03252017_112959.php#.YFOQpC2cbOQ

Pampuro, A. (2018, July 23). Veterans help clean up Colorado town after historic wildfire. Courthouse News Service.

www.courthousenews.com/veterans-help-clean-up-colorado-town-after-historic-wildfire/

Pebesma, E. (2018, July). Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. The R Journal, 10(1), 

439-446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009

Pebesma, E., & Bivand, R. (2005). Classes and methods for spatial data in R. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/

sp/vignettes/intro_sp.pdf

Phillips, K. (2018, July 13). A man told authorities he started a fire to grill his food. He’s now facing 141 counts of arson. 

The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/13/a-man-told-authorities-hestarted-a-fire-to-grill-his-food-hes-now-facing-141-counts-of-arson/

Pohl, J. (2017, May 11). Video: DC-10 makes drop on West Mims fire [Video]. Fire Aviation. fireaviation.com/tag/westmims-fire/

Pohl, J. (2017, May 22). West Mims Fire headlines fade away; firefight and drought continues. Wildfire Today. 

wildfiretoday.com/2017/05/22/west-mims-fire-headlines-fade-away-firefight-and-drought-continues/

Potter, T. (2017, April 1). Girlfriend, trucker killed in wildfire were talking, then the phone went silent. The Wichita Eagle.

https://www.kansas.com/news/state/article142050069.html 

Prickett, A. (2017, March 13). Northwest Oklahoma Complex fire 42 percent contained; winds bring back elevated 

fire risk. Fox 25. https://okcfox.com/news/local/northwest-oklahoma-complex-fire-42-percent-contained-windsbring-back-elevated-fire-risk

Reyes-Velarde, A. (2019, January 11). California’s Camp fire was the costliest global disaster last year, insurance report 

shows. Los Angeles Times. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-camp-fire-insured-losses-20190111-story.html

Satterfield, J. (2017, July 5). Attorney: Arson charges against teens in fatal Gatlinburg wildfire dropped. Knox News.

www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/tennessee/gatlinburg/2017/06/30/attorney-arson-charges-against-teensfatal-gatlinburg-wildfire-dropped/442706001

Satterfield, J. (2020, April 6). Gatlinburg’s former fire chief lambasts National Park Service in deadly wildfires lawsuit. 

Knox News. www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2020/04/06/gatlinburg-fire-chief-blames-national-parkservice-deadly-wildfires/5116729002/

Sernoffsky, E. (2018, November 15). Five firefighters among dozen-plus patients burned in Camp fire. San 

Francisco Chronicle. www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Five-firefighters-among-dozen-pluspatients-13396604.php

Stewart, S. I., Radeloff, V. C., Hammer, R. B., & Hawbaker, T. J. (2007, June). Defining the wildland–urban interface. 

Journal of Forestry, 201-207. silvis.forest.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Stewart-et-al-JOF-2007.pdf
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 84

Tennessee Department of Commerce & Insurance. (n.d.). 2016 structure fire fatalities. https://www.tn.gov/content/

dam/tn/commerce/documents/fire_prevention/posts/2016_Fire_Fatalities_Report.pdf 

Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office. (n.d.). Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office Commissioner’s Annual Report for 2016.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/commerce/documents/fire_prevention/posts/Fire_2016_Commissioners_

Annual_Report_2-7.pdf

University of Wisconsin-Madison. (n.d.). Wildland-urban interface (WUI) change 1990-2010: 2010 data, all classes. Silvis 

Lab: Spatial Analysis For Conservation and Sustainability. silvis.forest.wisc.edu/data/wui-change/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). 2017 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles: States (and equivalent). www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/

index.php?year=2017&layergroup=States+(and+equivalent)

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). 2019 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles: Counties (and equivalent). www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/

shapefiles/index.php?year=2019&layergroup=Counties+(and+equivalent)

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Service annual survey methodology: Two types of response rates. www.census.gov/

programs-surveys/sas/technical-documentation/methodology.html#par_textimage_20

U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service. (2017). California direct protection areas. www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/

FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3806036.zip

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). BLM national data. From Metadata and 

Downloadable Data: gis.blm.gov/EGISDownload/LayerPackages/BLM_National_Surface_Management_Agency.zip

U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. (2015, January). National Fire Incident Reporting System: Complete 

reference guide. FEMA. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nfirs/NFIRS_Complete_Reference_Guide_2015.pdf

U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. (2016-2018). National Fire Incident Reporting System: Public data 

release. Emmitsburg, MD. https://www.fema.gov/about/openfema/data-sets/fema-usfa-nfirs-annual-data

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Southeast Region Fire Division report FY2017. www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/report/

fire-report-2017-508.pdf

Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag.

Wickham, H. (2019). stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.4.0. 

CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr

Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. (2021, June 18). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package 

version 1.0.7. CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr

Wildland Fire Decision Support System. (n.d.). Boundaries/responsible agency (protection) [Data set]. wfdss.usgs.gov/

wfdss/WFDSS_Data_Downloads.shtml

Zenteno, R., Hanna, J., & Park, M. (2016, December 5). 14 confirmed dead in Tennessee wildfires. CNN. www.cnn.

com/2016/12/05/us/tennessee-gatlinburg-wildfires/index.html
An Analysis of NFIRS Data for Selected Wildfires Including Impacts in Wildland Urban Interface Areas 85

Acronyms

BLM Bureau of Land Management

EMS emergency medical services

FDID fire department identification 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GACC Geographic Area Coordination Center

IMT Incident Management Team

NFDC National Fire Data Center

NFIRS National Fire Incident Reporting System

NIFC National Interagency Fire Center

PDR Public Data Release

USFA U.S. Fire Administration

WUI wildland urban interface

This report is submitted to the U.S. Fire Administration National Fire Data Center by PG Public Services, LLC in 

accordance with the Performance Work Statement under contract 70FA2019P00000035.