Found this series tonight; first one is cutting a spring pole:

However, that style looks a bit facacta to me. Hey, we have a fire, let’s cut this little notch and wait and hope we cut it enough and we won’t have to come in and make a deeper cut. I prefer shaving diagonally from the outside; for lack of a better word “Game of Logging” style though I’m sure they didn’t invent it:

My company went mutual aid for a structure fire “through the roof” reported by a UPS driver on a long dead end road near the Brooklyn / Hampton town line. House was on the ground on arrival, so the woods fire was more interesting. You can find a full write up here.

West winds at 10mph, gusts to 20mph. Much better then the NW@20, Gusts to 40mph of the day before!

The fire grew to 3 to 5 acres in size (I didn’t GPS the perimeter), mainly because of initial concentration on the structure before engines and firefighters were put onto the woods fire. It was burning in primarily hardwood leaf litter, with a few small groves of hemlocks. Some young hemlocks did torch, and when the wind gusted even the leaf litter could produce 2′ flames.

What I like in the photo above is it shows a small spot fire. In these conditions if you wanted to successful with an indirect attack you probably needed a 3′ wide fire line to stop wind driven leaves from “rolling” across it. Leaf blowers backed up by hand tools would’ve done a heck of a job.

Archived here.

I started thinking about this post when reading recently this firehouse.com thread. That thread talked about anything from whether tires should be chosen to float over mud or cut through it to firm soil, to whether F-550s are really appropriate for brush trucks and, to paraphrase, “people are forgetting what brush trucks are for going that large!” Even the disadvantage of diesel engines — a lot heavier up front increasing the risk of sinking your front end when encountering soft terrain.

Two things I want to go over in this post:

1) Compare the specifications on the classic Dodge Power Wagon WM-300 to some modern day chassis;

2) To the comments about an F-550 being too large, to show even larger trucks that are used in very appropriate ways off-highway in Central Massachusetts…while they also use nice, compact forestries very effectively too.

The classic Dodge Power Wagon, a civilian descendant of the military WC series of trucks first fielded in 1941, is perhaps the most well regarded chassis for a basic forestry truck in my area. In today’s national ICS parlance, a “Type 6 Wildland Engine.”

Massachusetts’ Bureau of Forest Fire Control still has nearly a dozen, like the above, in their active inventory.

Some basic specs on the 1961 Power Wagon WM-300, a one-ton version (the full specs are here):
GVWR: 8,700#
Payload Capacity: 3,000#
Curb Weight: 5,700#
Front Axle Capacity: 3,750#
Rear Axle Capacity: 6,500#
(Optionally the GVWR could be increased to 9,500#)

Compare this to a 2011 F-250 with a gas engine:
GVWR: 10,000#
Payload Capacity: 2,940#
Curb: 7,060#
Front Axle: 6,000#
Rear Axle: 6,200#

Of course in all these debates about what is best for off-road and how modern 1 ton diesels just have too much weight up front, yadda yadda yadda…notice the old power wagons came from a popular option of a factory installed winch. People have always been getting stuck.

But I think it’s good to remember a well accepted classic for its off-road capability is more like a modern 3/4 ton then today’s one ton and heavier trucks.

But weight isn’t the only factor — each area has its own unique circumstances.

Central Massachusetts “Heavy Forestries”

(Photos below courtesy of massfiretrucks.com)

I call these trucks “Heavies” — most don’t even fit neatly into the Engine Typing scheme, being significantly larger then the minimum for a Wildland Type 3, but not seating enough to be considered a Structural Type 1 or 2 (but otherwise meeting the requirements). A number do double-duty as small tankers as well.

Usually these work together with much more modest smaller trucks:

While the thought of a forestry carrying a 1000 gallons or more probably would cause fits for those who think F-550s are too big, Alan Brackett has a nice photo essay on some recent fires in our area which includes this nice photo that shows the two above trucks operating at an incident together at http://www.pbase.com/abrackett/image/123871294. In the right area this is a very effective combination. You can even add a third component of ATVs / UTVs that handle the worse and muddiest terrain for relaying manpower, equipment, and even small amounts of water.

Dudley has a combination that uses a heavy engine along with two J series Jeep forestries:

Some other similar heavies:

The Upton Engine above is interesting if you read the lettering on the door — it reads, “Forest Fire Department.” Many communities in Massachusetts formerly operated two separate fire departments, one which handled forest fires and a second that handled structure fires. This came out of the system of Town Forest Fire Wardens. Most have now consolidated fully, but I believe there are handful that remain separate organizations, and some number more that are essentially one department but with two separate budget allocations from the town.

Massachusetts, at least over the last 25 years, has a history of using a lot of military surplus trucks as “tankers” — this isn’t something I’ve personally seen that much of in Connecticut or Rhode Island; maybe in the past but certainly not in recent decades. But they remain common in Massachusetts. While some serve rural communities, many serve towns where most of the population lives and tanker operations are only needed in small sections of their communities.

There are lot more examples if you poke around on www.massfiretrucks.com

If a pile like this is causing problems getting apparatus by it, or is throwing sparks over the flank you’re trying to make a fire line along, you’ll have to take the time to knock it down. During that time, the fire is extending in the woods.

December 2008 ice storm damage

Maybe Massachusetts should just lease a some more bulldozers for the next few seasons. How do you handle a brush fire burning in this mess on a dry, breezy day? It’s going to take a lot of hose work along with flanks to be sure.

December 2008 ice storm damage

Bulldozers and fire plows are not used much in New England compared to southern and western states.  The fires, terrain, and resources don’t tend to lend themselves to that style of firefighting.  Most landowners would throw a holy fit if you cut a fire line on their property with a bulldozer for our typical fires.

But they do exist. Massachusetts has one stationed in Plymouth, and Connecticut has one I believe out of Voluntown. Often, a relative term given the infrequent use, the dozers are tasked with constructing access roads to fires deep in the woods. For comparison, New Jersey runs some 20 dozers, most equipped with plows, while Maryland runs 19 dozer/plow units.

Massachusetts Bureau of Forest Fire Control bulldozer and fire plow

In addition to the structural engines, the forestry specific fire units in the area are:

Leicester currently runs three forestry units:
F1 — 2008 F-350 250gpm/225gwt/8foam
F2 — 2003 F-350 125/225
F3 — 2001 Freightliner 1250/1500/30

Paxton
F1 — 2006 F-550 250/300/10

Leicester, MA Forestry 3 (was F2 in this picture)

Imagine trying to keep a fire small when depending on horses to transport your equipment, and without many of the improved tools of today!

This is a New Jersey fire warden from 1911 (from the book New Jersey Forest Fire Service) equipped with shovels, milk cans (used to carry water), garden watering cans, and some sort of larger tank.

New Jersey Fire Warden Victor Bush, 1911

From Britt Crosby’s CapeCodFD.com site we have an early fire wagon in Massachusetts:

Men filling soda acid extinguishers, Southeastern Massachusetts

Soda acid extinguishers required a recharge cartridge of sulfuric acid and sodium bicarbonate; inverting the extinguisher would produce carbond dioxide which would pressurize the extinguisher.  Each extinguisher held 2-1/2 to 3 gallons of water and depending on the fire intensity, terrain, and skill of the firefighter could knock down 50′ to 200′ of surface fire.

The Massachusetts Bureau of Forest Fire Control built specialized wagons to use instead of the adapted farm wagons above that were discussed in the 1918 book, “Forestry in New England.”  While in use throughout the eastern part of the state they were most common in the southeastern section.

A two horse model, like the one below, carried 14 soda acid extinguishers, 14 water cans and sufficient to refill 2 extinguishers each, shovels, rakes, mattocks, and chemical charges, along with 8 men.

Massachusetts two horse forest fire wagon

The one horse model below was carried a smaller amount of equipment and only four men. Basic apparatus economics held true even back then.  A one horse wagon cost $300, while the two horse wagon carrying twice the equipment and manpower only raised the price to $450.

Massachusetts one horse forest fire wagon

Another early option to either watering cans or soda acid extinguishers was the one and two man bucket pumps.   A one man pump, like the one below, carried four gallons of water and was considered adequate to knock down 50′ to 150′ of fire.  It was considered a little less efficient, but considerably cheaper to purchase and recharge, then a soda acid extinguisher.

One man pump

A two man pump carried eight gallons and took two men to carry.

Created to ease the financial strains of the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps, or CCC, employed over 3,000,000 young men* between 1933-1942.  The 21 camps in Connecticut provided barrack-style food and housing along with a small monthly stiped.  The men worked o a variety of conservation projects including forest road construction, recreation area development and fire suppression.

A system of fire ponds, each holding a minimum of 7500 gallons of water, served as the main water source for fire suppression in the state forests.  This particular fire pond was probably built by enrollees from Camp Connor in Stafford Springs circa 1936.   The goal of building one pond per 100 acres on state land and one pond per 200 acres on private land was curtailed by the onset of WWII and the closing of the CCC camps.  By 1941, the CCC had completed 404 water holes in the 80,000 acres of state forest and 269 holes on private land.

This fire pond, restored to the original conditionin 2001, illustrates one of several designs utilized by the CCC.

…

Many unrestored fire ponds can discovered along forest roads throughout Shenipsit and Nipmuck State Forest.

From this sign:

Sign at the Mountain Laurel Sanctuary, Nipmuck State Forest, Union, CT

This is the pond it refers to:

Fire pond at Mountain Laurel Sanctuary, Nipmuck State Forest, Union, CT

This is another style of pond:

Fire Pond in Natchaug State Forest, Hampton, CT

My observation is these ponds would have been most useful during the spring fire season, filled by snow melt and spring rains.  In a normal summer today these are dry by mid-summer, and thus not available in the summer and fall fire seasons during a drought.  I doubt this would have been any different seventy years ago.

They would have been useful for filling Indian tanks, as well as portable pumps and hose.

Today forestry agencies around the U.S. continue to improve rural water supplies, often under the auspices of the U.S. Forest Service’s Rural Community Fire Protection cooperative program they administer.

RI Rural Community Fire Protection Program
RC&D [Resource Conservation & Development] partnered with the DEM- Division of Forest Environment to provide rural communities with fire protection assistance. In 2006 RC&D designed, produced, and
distributed 200 Dry Hydrant Guidance Manuals to local fire departments, held four workshops across the state on the program and received 19 applications for dry hydrants from six rural fire departments. When installed these hydrants will improve fire protection for an estimated 13,000 residents of these communities.

Rhode Island Resource Conservation & Development 2006 Annual Report

These static water supplies are considerably larger then the old hand dug fire ponds of the CCC, designed to support both wildland and structural fire protection.  This is a representative dry hydrant installation:

[Photo of the Hampton hydrant will go here, once I find it...]

There is a couple ways to estimate coverage for the old water holes.

One is we can assume a square grid with perfectly even distribution.  100 acres would be approximately 2,000 feet square.  From the center of that square to a side would be 1,000′ while reaching a corner would take 1,400′.

Another is to use a circle centered on the water hole.  A circle 1,200′ in radius would cover approximately 100 acres, while a circle 1,650′ in radius would cover approximately 200′ acres.

* For perspective, the U.S. population in 1940 was 134 Million, of which 5.6 Million were males between the age of 20 and 24.  A proportionately sized program today would employ some 7 Million men, with about 2 Million in active service at any given time.

Civil Air Patrol pilots on wildfire patrols

By Terry Karkos , Staff Writer
Sunday, April 19, 2009

AUGUSTA – One of the nation’s best-kept secrets is getting some air time in Maine this year.

In a brand-new program starting this month, prompted by substantial budget cuts, the Maine Forest Service has contracted with the Civil Air Patrol to conduct fire-watch patrol flights on five statewide routes.

“We’re excited about this,” said Kent Nelson, the service’s fire prevention specialist. “This is really going to help out both our agencies and hopefully reduce the amount of wildfires.”

With more than 56,000 members nationwide, the nonprofit Civil Air Patrol is the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. Founded in 1941, the air patrol originally assisted the War Department by defending the nation’s coastline during World War II.

Its volunteers perform homeland security, disaster relief and counter-drug missions at the request of federal, state and local agencies, according to Civil Air Patrol Web sites.

Members also play a leading role in aerospace education and serve as mentors to the nearly 22,000 young people participating in its cadet programs.

“Certainly, the Civil Air Patrol is going to do a good job,” said Maine Forest Service chief pilot John Knight of Old Town. “We have no doubt about that.”

Nelson said Knight got the idea last year to use the resources of the air patrol after learning that other states have been using it for smoke- and air-detection flights.

Maine Wing Civil Air Patrol Lt. Mary Storey of Auburn agrees it’s a timely idea.

“It will be cost-effective and save Maine a lot of money,” Storey said. “Maine says they’re broke and we fly free. Whereas in the past, (the Forest Service) used to take a big plane up at $1,000 an hour, with us, it’s $100 an hour.”

Knight figured using Maine’s Civil Air Patrol on a call-when-needed basis as opposed to a general contract would save, on average, $57,000 a year. That’s based on the average flight time through private contracting in the past decade.

Civil Air Patrol flights will be frequent in the spring when fire danger is high, with fewer in the summer when lush grasses reduce the fire risk. Flights will increase again in the fall, as the fire danger rises.

Prior to using aircraft starting in the 1930s to find wildfires, for many years the Forest Service relied on a network of triangulating fire towers across the state.

“The beauty of the fire patrol over that system, of course, is that you can fly right over the fire and give the exact latitude and longitude and also help direct whoever’s responding – whether it be a fire department or one of our rangers – to exactly where the fire is and which road to take and where the closest water source is,” Knight said.

Savings-wise, Knight said, the last 17 towers closed by the service were costing $450,000 a year to staff and maintain.

In 1991 or 1992, three airplane fire patrol contracts for the same area cost $45,000 in the first year, he said.

An even greater savings is expected to be realized by using Civil Air Patrol planes and pilots instead of private contractors to fly five 250-mile routes instead of nine shorter routes to cover the whole state.

When Maine has any kind of high fire danger, air patrol pilots and planes will be used in tandem with state aircraft and those from other state agencies, such as state police, marine patrol, and fish and wildlife, officials said.

Maine’s Civil Air Patrol has 17 volunteer mission pilots who fly the small red, white and blue airplanes.

“We’re often called the best-kept secret,” pilot Warren King of New Auburn said, as he examined one of two Cessna 282 planes tied to the tarmac at the Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport.

“We’re trying to let the public know what we’re doing and why we’re doing it,” Storey said. “It’s all for them.”

Article from the Sun Journal.  There’s also this companion piece which  interviews a CAP pilot.

If I’m reading the article right, the Maine Fire Service has replaced 9 contract aircraft with 5 Civil Air Patrol aircraft, which fly longer routes.

I was able to pull some ballpark figures out of it though which seem reasonable:

Per-tower cost, 1991:  $26,470.
Figure for staffing, electricty, telephone, maintenance, etc that doesn’t sound unreasonable.  I’m assuming that’s paying someone to work fulltime for six months or so, say April 1 — Nov 1, not sure what you do with them when it’s raining.  But it’s not like you’ll find many people who are healthy enough to climb an 80′ tower but will agree to only work part of the year, and then only as needed, for may fifteen bucks an hour, and won’t go batshit crazy looking at the woods all day long.
3% inflation gets you to $43,750/tower/year in 2009.

Aircraft cost, 1992:  $45,000.
One aircraft replaces about 6 fire towers.  (You can read the article as saying all three planes together only cost $45,000 but I think that has to be a grammatical mistake.)
3% inflation gets you to $74,400/aircraft/year in 2010.

That inflation adjustment I made is pretty close to the low end of Ontario’s cost, which in 2006 was $87,750 Canadian ($325/hour x 270 hours/year — http://fire.feric.ca/36502006/DetectionWorkshop/McAlpineDetection.ppt)

Doing the math another way, they also say the CAP will save $57,000 a year, and the CAP charge to the state is $100/hour.  270 hours x $100/hour = $27,000… $27,000 + $57,000 = $84,000…right in the ballpark of what Ontario spends.

The purpose to towers and aircraft are to find fires faster so they’re kept smaller — using less manhours, fuel, etc to control and consuming less resources like timber or homes.

We know we don’t typically have fires in Connecticut that threaten many buildings (not that it can’t happen), and we know we don’t normally have fires that truly threaten timber.  So we can’t realistically talk about “losses prevented” in Connecticut today.

So we’re talking about having to save marginal extra expenses — Overtime for DEP guys out on the fire line, payments to volunteer fire companies for assisting DEP, fuel, etc.

That would mean a fire tower saving about $45,000 a year in extra costs, or an aircraft saving about $84,000 (private) or $27,000 (CAP) in a year.  We’d need about 15 towers to cover Connecticut, or one aircraft.

I wish the math wasn’t so stark, ’cause I really do think fire towers are cool.

But we’d need to return to a day of a much more persistent, much more serious forest fire problem then we have today to make them worthwhile.

More on fire tower economics from Ontario:
http://fire.feric.ca/36152002/WorkshopPresentation/Economics.ppt

http://www.forestry.utoronto.ca/courses/jfg475f/detectnotes.pdf

http://fire.feric.ca/36502006/DetectionWorkshop/McAlpineDetection.ppt

While the hand tools used today to control forest fires are simple, the tools — if they even deserve the name tool — from back in 1908 were downright primitive.

Wardens may destroy fences, plow land, or, in an emergency, set back fires to
check any fire. (Back fires should only be started at a road, brook, or other
natural barrier.) Ground fires can usually be put out by beating with wet sacks,
cedar boughs, or similiar implements.  Much effective work can be done throwing
loose earth on the advancing flames. Of course, near brooks and ponds, water is
the best fire extinguisher. By raking leaves and dead matter away from advancing
fire it can often be stopped for lack of material to burn. Plowing one or two
furrows ahead of a fire will often stop it, unless the wind is very strong.
(From Connecticut's 1908 edition of "Instructions to Fire Wardens",
included in Connecticut Forestry Pamphlets Volume III)

Bureaucracy being the same in all ages, of the 24 pages of the pamphlet that paragraph was the only directions given about how to put out a forest fire.  The rest dealt with organizational issues, like how to submit bills and complete time cards.

I’m comfortable assuming cedar boughs haven’t been used in many years in Connecticut, although back when I was in college I came across a grass fire threatening to extend to a chicken coop which I beat out with my nomex fire coat.

Generally there are four hand tools now used in Connecticut — a backpack pump commonly called an “Indian Tank” after a brand name used by the D. B. Smith Company that popularized that tool, the Council Tool forestry rake, and either bamboo brooms or the collapsible metal rake designed by Roscommon Equipment Center.  All those tools, and organizations, are worth their own future posts so I won’t go into much detail here on them.

A six man hand crew that has a little bit of training, discipline, and is in decent shape can fight a surprisingly large fire with these simple tools. Two firefighters carrying Indian Tanks, followed by two carrying rakes, followed by two carrying brooms work together to knock down the flames directly and construct a fire line.

On most fires in Connecticut a direct attack is used, where the actions of firefighters directly extinguish the flames. Normally this is also in conjunction with an aggressive effort to get a crew to the part of the fire being driven by the wind (the “head”) while other teams secure the flanks. This combination minimizes the size of the area the fire, and is usually the appropriate strategy and tactics given our typical resources, terrain, vegetation, and weather.

Working from the “black” (the burned area of the fire so the heat and smoke is being blown away from the team) the lead Indian Tank works quickly to knock the flames down as fast as he can.  The second Indian Tank will follow him, spritzing small flames left in the wake of the first firefighter.

Following the Indian Tanks are the firefighters with Council Tool fire rakes who cut light brush and pull the sticks and the bulk of leaves back into the burned area.  Properly maintained they cut well since the triangular teeth are actually cutting sections for sickle bar mowers. The rakers start their pull from just outside the fire area, bringing any embers hiding under the leaves along with a little bit unburned materials into the black.  Sometimes thick brush or large logs will make them have to build a fire line entirely away from the black, a situation that requires extra policing later on. Behind the rakers are sweepers using bamboo brooms or collapsible metal rakes to sweep a clean line clear down to dirt that’s a foot or two wide.

On the rare large fires where the crew will be working far from the trucks or known water supplies, it’s a good idea to have them hike in all wearing Indian Tanks, as well as an axe and shovel. The extra tanks and tools can then be left in a tool depot near where the crew goes to work.

For contrast with this typical or traditional Connecticut hand crew, this is a description of a Pennsylvania hand crew employing their typical tactic on larger fires of an indirect attack where they build a fire line then light a backburn, using a similar set of tools:

The forest fire crew constructs a control line, by hand, making a barrier around
the fire to check its growth. Construction of a control line should always begin
on a safe anchor point such as a road, power line, lake, stream, or rock slide
or any other natural or man made structure which provides a hard stop against
fire. The crew is led by the Trail Blazer who clears the initial path for the
control line. He uses a Sanvik brush knife or brush hook to clear small
underbrush and low hanging tree branches. He is followed by a team of rakemen
who use fire rakes to remove the surface fuels down to mineral soil. There are
normally 10 or more rakemen on a crew. The most common method used by the
rakemen is the One Lick. In this method each rakeman takes one lick with his
rake and then moves on. Each rakeman behind him does the same making the line
deeper and wider as they go. They are followed by a sweeper who uses a fire
broom to remove any excess leaves, twigs, and other small fuels from the line
and from around trees near the line. Following this, the torch man "burns out"
the fuels which lie between the control line and the fire. He is followed by one
or more crewmen with backpack tanks who are charged with controlling the
burn-out. In this way, a control line can be constructed in nearly any place at
any time.
(From Pennsylvania Forest Fire Warden Association's District 17 website,
retrieved 24 March 2009)

While an indirect attack by building a control line away from the fire and backfiring is still rare in Connecticut, some of their tools are migrating into our area.  For the last couple years the Connecticut DEP has offered backpack leaf blowers on their purchasing schedule to local departments — these machines are popular in Pennsylvania for taking the place of the sweepers.  It will be interesting to see how Connecticut tactics change over the next few years as we continue to trade ideas with other states.