Fire officials don't want towers closed
They say people are best smoke detectors
	
By REBECCA TSAROS DICKSON
Monitor staff
January 18, 2004 - 10:30 pm

The committee established by Gov. Craig Benson to save money for the state says New Hampshire's fire lookout towers are antiquated and expensive. Air surveillance and satellite technology might be more cost-effective for detecting and fighting fires, the committee said.

But officials at the state Division of Forests and Lands say technological advances aren't always better than Yankee ingenuity. The equipment the committee highlighted might be cheaper in the short term, but would drive up other costs later - and still wouldn't be as useful as the state's 15 fire towers, they said.

"There's three key components (to fires): detection, protection and suppression," said Phil Bryce, director of the Division of Forests and Lands. "How long will it take to see the fire? To get to the fire? The longer it takes, the bigger it gets and the more manpower you need to put it out."

Twelve of the towers, built in the early 1900s from Milford to Pittsburg, were inducted into the National Historic Lookout Register last year. The last time they stood empty was in 1983, when budget cuts made the closures necessary. But within two years, a dry summer forced the state to find the money to open them again.

John Babiarz, a member of the governor's efficiency committee, said the state would have saved an estimated $4 million if the towers had stayed closed. "With today's technology, 911, cell phones, I think the towers are obsolete," he said. "They have outlived their usefulness, but they make nice museum pieces."

In other New England states, officials have taken varying stances. Maine and Vermont have eliminated their towers, favoring aircraft surveillance. But in Massachusetts, 42 towers from Martha's Vineyard to the Berkshires might soon be joined by more. Officials hope to expand towers to areas that have high fire danger or poor visibility from existing towers.

"Many states have given up this system of detection (fire towers) for other means," said Michael Tirrell, chief fire warden for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. "Aerial detection is one method of locating fires, but it is costly, and depending on the contractor, is not as accurate as having a trained forest fire observer."

Tirrell also dispelled what he called a common myth: that aircraft surveillance or motorists with cell phones detect most fires. "We in Massachusetts have found that most reporting done by the public usually gives only the very broadcast location of the fire, and quick initial response to keep these fires small cannot happen. Fire towers provide local communities and state resources accurate locations of fires, thereby increasing the success of suppression."

Vermont and Maine both exclusively use aerial detection. The size of the fires in each state averaged more than triple those in New Hampshire and more than double that of Massachusetts in 2002. Just 2 percent of Vermont's 150 fires were detected from the air, while 94 percent came from the public. In Maine, 61 of the 700 fires were reported from air surveillance.

Vermont spent about $400,000 for aerial detection of fires in 2002. The state saw an average of 270 acres burn each year during the last decade.

Maine officials spent $1.6 million in 2002 for its aircraft fire detection program. About 700 fires tore through 766 acres.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts, which relies solely on its 42 towers for wildfire detection, spent about $850,000 in 2002. More than 3,000 fires burned 2,615 acres that year. New Hampshire spent $777,000 for fire detection in 2002, which includes the $10,000 for air surveillance. About 540 fires burned 187 acres; one was detected from the air.

"Detection is the primary function (of fire towers), along with communication within a fire situation,"Bryce said. "We keep the fire sizes way down because we get there quickly. With aerial detection, you don't have 100 percent coverage. So you may reduce the cost (of detection), but what happens to the cost of suppression? The fires get bigger by the time you get to them."

Another variable of the fire prevention budget is communication during a fire. New Hampshire's fire towers now provide that. Maine has three dispatch centers for communication during a wildland fire; costs for the centers were not available.

"If you look at any one component, the cost may be reduced. But it has to increase someplace else,"Bryce said. "Maine has dispatch centers. We use our towers. If we get rid of them, are we going to dispatch in another way or rely on existing emergency services? Will it be more costly? Increase their burden? Is there even a willingness?" 

Technological concerns have also come to a head, according to Bryce. Satellite systems that work so well out West may not be effective here. New Hampshire tends to have smaller wildfires that don't burn as hot as in California, which uses the technology, he said.

Babiarz argued that it took days to get to opposite ends of the state back when the towers were built. That's no longer the case. Firefighters also have better equipment and quicker water access.

Bryce doesn't argue those points. "But what's also happened is the threat to public safety, life and property has changed," he said. "There's a lot less tolerance for 20, 30, 50 acres of fire now. Chances are, there'd be a home in the middle of it. We have an obligation to put them out a lot quicker, too."

The fate of the fire towers is still an open question. Efficiency committee members will spend this legislative session testifying on behalf of their recommendations, Babiarz said.