Comparing contingency fire containment strategies using simulated random scenarios

Abstract

Contingency firelines can be used to back up primary lines to increase probability of fire containment, decrease fire losses, and improve firefighter safety. In this study, we classify firelines into primary, contingency, and response lines. We design a modeling process to iteratively implement a mixed integer programming model to evaluate contingency strategies under randomly generated fireline breaching scenarios. Our objectives include: (1) gaining conceptual understanding of the effectiveness of using contingency containers in a fireline network, and (2) suggesting future data collection and model improvement directions to support contingency strategy planning. We evaluate the effectiveness of several model generated containment strategies: only responding to observed primary line breaches, being proactive by implementing a system-level contingency plan, or constructing contingency lines to back up a proportion of a primary container. Data from the Ferguson Fire in California are used to derive a set of hypothetical test cases with different fireline breaching risks to support sensitivity analysis. For comparison, we also test a contingency plan inspired by the Ferguson Fire operation. Analyses

Forest Roads and Operational Wildfire Response Planning

“…Another management focus could be scheduling harvest along roads to enhance control opportunities [60], entailing decision variables related to cut depth, maintenance, and silvicultural prescription, and objective functions including harvest volume, cost, and reduction in fire intensity. A related optimization model for real-time decision support could build from the POD-based work of [28][29][30] to embed spatial dynamics of fire growth in relation to roads and PCLs and include time windows for prepping roads to enhance control probability. As these frameworks develop, so too hopefully will the empirical basis to calibrate and validate them, notably addressing knowledge gaps around suppression resource productivity and effectiveness [7,18,20].…”

“…The intent of this communication is to illustrate by example how forest roa considered in fire planning, leveraging the authors' collective experience workin fire managers to deliver decision support. We focus on two interrelated products u the National Forest System and adjacent lands throughout the western USA: (1) po wildland fire operational delineations (PODs) and (2) potential control locations ( PODs are spatial units delineated by fire managers using potential fire control fe (e.g., roads, ridge tops, streams, fuel transitions), within which relevant informat ecology, forest conditions, fire behavior, suppression difficulty, and wildfire risk summarized and then combined with local expertise to define strategic wildfire res objectives [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. PODs development typically takes place in workshop setting blend fire analytics with local expertise [31,32].…”

Three Lines of Defense for Wildfire Risk Management in Electric Power Grids: A Review

“…The proposed system is comprised of unmanned aerial and ground vehicles in a cooperative framework to suppress the wildfires in an optimal manner. Simulation and optimization models have also been developed in the past to distribute fireline construction and structure protection efforts to minimize fire size, or the expected property, infrastructure and natural resource damages (e.g., [108][109][110][111]).…”

Potential operational delineations: new horizons for proactive, risk-informed strategic land and fire management

“…The pre-positioned, mapped information can assist with information sharing, developing a common operating picture, and communicating fire management strategy internally and during public engagement before, during, and after a fire. The framework is rooted in risk management principles (e.g., addressing uncertainty, being proactive, and seeking out the best available information), blends advanced spatial fire modeling analytics with local expertise, emphasizes place-based engagement with local managers and stakeholders, co-produces actionable science-informed knowledge, and facilitates communication, coordination, and decision making across wildland fire Thompson et al (2016cThompson et al ( , 2018b Optimization and prioritization Values and objectives; forest and rangeland restoration; fuel treatment strategy; incident response strategy Hogland et al (2021), Metlen et al (2021), Thompson et al (2017), Wei et al (2018Wei et al ( , 2019Wei et al ( , 2021, Wollstein et al (2022) Iterative improvement from user feedback Practitioner feedback; incident summaries; informational documents and overviews; third-party assessment Caggiano et al (2019Caggiano et al ( , 2020Caggiano et al ( , 2021, Calkin et al (2021), Greiner et al (2020), O'Connor and Calkin (2019), Schultz et al (2021) and land management jurisdictions. Furthermore, PODs have emerged as useful boundary spanning objects and concepts (i.e., concrete objects such as maps that allow shared meaning and flexible interpretation, and notions that facilitate communication using a common vocabulary and shared meaning) that help bring more stakeholder voices to the table and more readily bridge ownership and disciplinary boundaries (Wyborn 2015;Davis et al 2021).…”