Reduced Public Access in the Name of Safety

[Irrelevant]

I brought this up in another thread, but I think it warrants its own thread.

Here in Eastern WA we're seeing increased regulations restricting public use and recreation on public lands due to the wildfire risk. While I think everyone is in agreement that wildfire suck and that we shouldn't go out of our way to start them. The "safety third" in me, gets more and more irritated at this concept that we need to do everything possible to get a zero result (that's my perception of where we're going). When you combine those heavy-handed front-end restrictions with the fact that the FS almost categorically refuses to "put out" fires, you end up with drastically less "access" than we think we have to our public lands.

Example: The Pomas Fire in the Glacier Peak Wilderness area (Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest), it started on June 13, they closed down 100+ sq miles, and are already stating publicly that it'll "burn" until Oct. It's only grown to 1,700 acres in over two weeks, even though it's been 100+ degs the last two days. The nearest MODIS detection is 15 miles from the edge of the area closure. Just a few years ago, a fire like this would have caused some trail closures over maybe a 10-20 sq miles area all in the wilderness. Now it's just ridiculous.

 

[Jbaldwin40]

Historically, thr Forest Service is a fire manage agency. This is particularly true in Wilderness areas. The problem with using long lerm forcasts is the 64,000 acres they closed may not be big enough. Their modeling programs can't forcast fire growth that far out. If the fire has only burned 1700 acres in this amount of time, it is a low intensity burn and doing good. Problem is, they need to draw a line somewhere and realize the fuels will dry out more as summer progresses and eventually the wind and topography will increase fire behavior allowing for a very large fire leading to a larger closure.
I have seen an increase of restrictions which seem excessive. There are also numerous instances when a federally managed fire grows into a huge fire and sucks up resources from accross the nation.
I understand fire restrictions, even though some of them a ridiculous, but a full closure of the forest because of fire risk is excessive. A 100 square mile closure because of an ongoing fire is two fold. Fires grow more rapidly now than they did 30 years ago and we live in a more litigious society.
It would be easier to put the fire out while it is small but they have to follow the same restrictions we do in wilderness areas concerning motorized equipment.
I am on both sides of the fence on this. The fuel loading in our public land has to do alot with lack of fire which historically occured. This is a contributing factor of the large devastating fires we see today. More aggressive approaches to fire suppression began after 1905 with those conflagrations. It has increased with the encroachment of homes requiring some agencies to aggressivly suppress fires. Our forests need a lot of work for a long time. The logging that the government says it is going to open up is problematic. Someone has to log it which would be so cost prohibitive and take so long to get a timber harvest plan approved because of litigation.
Compound this by master plans of selling or leasing public land for housing in these areas prone to fire and we have a real problem in addition to loosing our land. Very complicated issue.

 

[Salmonchaser]

I’m with you, these kind of restrictions are because people can be really stupid, they get themselves in trouble and the rest of us pay the consequences for their actions. Makes we furious.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I'm in support of using fire as a way to accomplish forest management goals, don't know all the details on this one, but I agree forest service in particular can be way over the top with area closures, and this seems like more than necessary. A couple years back they kept closing hwy 20 for one of the fires burning in the park, which also seemed pretty unnecessary.

 

[SAJ-99]

I brought this up in another thread, but I think it warrants its own thread.

Here in Eastern WA we're seeing increased regulations restricting public use and recreation on public lands due to the wildfire risk. While I think everyone is in agreement that wildfire suck and that we shouldn't go out of our way to start them. The "safety third" in me, gets more and more irritated at this concept that we need to do everything possible to get a zero result (that's my perception of where we're going). When you combine those heavy-handed front-end restrictions with the fact that the FS almost categorically refuses to "put out" fires, you end up with drastically less "access" than we think we have to our public lands.

Example: The Pomas Fire in the Glacier Peak Wilderness area (Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest), it started on June 13, they closed down 100+ sq miles, and are already stating publicly that it'll "burn" until Oct. It's only grown to 1,700 acres in over two weeks, even though it's been 100+ degs the last two days. The nearest MODIS detection is 15 miles from the edge of the area closure. Just a few years ago, a fire like this would have caused some trail closures over maybe a 10-20 sq miles area all in the wilderness. Now it's just ridiculous.

I get the frustration. I think it is a bit of an overreaction for FS, probably done for the reasons cited. I don’t really blame them for not putting it out. It’s in a wilderness area so access is limited. And as is the case with most fires they aren’t “out” until a good rain or the first snow. The fact this one is burning in an old burn makes snow the ultimate extinguisher. I tend to trust the people who know the area best. The updated report seemed pretty reasonable, but if I was local used the area I would definitely be irritated too by the size of the closure.

 

[Nameless Range]

I don’t know the details, but what you describe sounds extreme.

4 years ago I hiked to the top Haystack Peak above a fire smoldering on its northern flank. I was probably 500 yards from the perimeter. No closures, but a fire burning on steep rocky terrain that was too dangerous to attack directly.A month later, that 20 acre smolder rode a wind from Elk Park to within sight of Boulder and torched nearly 40 square miles.

A lot of people like to claim the USFS manages fires and doesn’t put them out, but historically they put out something like 94% on initial attack in Montana at least. I don’t know if they are extremely conservative to DOGE’s resource constraints forced upon them, or if they see fuels and prevailing winds and models and recreational uses that make them gun shy.

I’d be curious what the district Ranger would say if you reached out to them.

 

[Irrelevant]

I get all the arguments FOR fire. But what about the arguments AGAINST fire? Is a fire in June the same as one in August? On will burn for 4 months, the other for 1/2 that. The longer we let slow burners smolder the greater the odds that it blows up into a monster. Does the public actually support a policy where we'll end up with many months of poor air quality when we could have done something about it? I'm just not sure who is held accountable for managing the public's resources in ways the public actually support. It seems we need more common sense and nuance.

 

[Jbaldwin40]

I get all the arguments FOR fire. But what about the arguments AGAINST fire? Is a fire in June the same as one in August? On will burn for 4 months, the other for 1/2 that. The longer we let slow burners smolder the greater the odds that it blows up into a monster. Does the public actually support a policy where we'll end up with many months of poor air quality when we could have done something about it? I'm just not sure who is held accountable for managing the public's resources in ways the public actually support. It seems we need more common sense and nuance.

You are correct. I rambled a little earlier. The Haystack Fire Nameless Range referenced started in the beginning of July and stayed near the top of the peak until September when the wind came and it made its run to Boulder. That is the risk of not containing it when they are small. It is better to have a controlled managed fire with control lines at a different time of year. I also didn't mean to imply the USFS does not put fires out during initial attack because they do. It does seem they manage fires in wilderness areas with minimal impact and strategy tactics more frequently than they would for fires closer to populated areas. It is a gamble based on a decion which was made on the circumstances of this particular case. The smoke sucks. The closures suck.

 

[SAJ-99]

I get all the arguments FOR fire. But what about the arguments AGAINST fire? Is a fire in June the same as one in August? On will burn for 4 months, the other for 1/2 that. The longer we let slow burners smolder the greater the odds that it blows up into a monster. Does the public actually support a policy where we'll end up with many months of poor air quality when we could have done something about it? I'm just not sure who is held accountable for managing the public's resources in ways the public actually support. It seems we need more common sense and nuance.

It tend to think we need more money. This fire would require helicopters and tankers to extinguish. And to my point, in an old burn, wouldn’t be completely extinguished for sure. As you are aware, June was dry and July is typically the driest. They had to make a decision. People either complain about the closures or complain about the cost of the fire. As more of those costs are pushed down to state and local levels, I can’t guess that the complaints will increase.

Also, it is wilderness. So maybe letting it burn is the plan? Human have always thought they should manage things, and we have always sucked at it.

 

[brymoore]

I get all the arguments FOR fire. But what about the arguments AGAINST fire? Is a fire in June the same as one in August? On will burn for 4 months, the other for 1/2 that. The longer we let slow burners smolder the greater the odds that it blows up into a monster. Does the public actually support a policy where we'll end up with many months of poor air quality when we could have done something about it? I'm just not sure who is held accountable for managing the public's resources in ways the public actually support. It seems we need more common sense and nuance.

2016 Idaho Pioneer Fire. It started mid July and smoldered for weeks. It was a lightning fire. The decision was to let it burn.

After several weeks, all hell broke lose. It was finally contained in November after snows. 294 square miles burnt and $95 million dollars spent fighting it.

It was close to my house. Luckily the prevailing wind was away from my house. Family watched it burn from our house for months.

2017, Feds closed the burned area to allow logging to occur quickly, although logging still occurred in small areas at a time. Half my elk unit land was inaccessible.

My thoughts are to put out what fires you can, quickly. There’s no reason to pick and choose which fires to fight.

 

[Irrelevant]

It tend to think we need more money. This fire would require helicopters and tankers to extinguish. And to my point, in an old burn, wouldn’t be completely extinguished for sure. As you are aware, June was dry and July is typically the driest. They had to make a decision. People either complain about the closures or complain about the cost of the fire. As more of those costs are pushed down to state and local levels, I can’t guess that the complaints will increase.

Also, it is wilderness. So maybe letting it burn is the plan? Human have always thought they should manage things, and we have always sucked at it.

It's not for lack of resources. This is clearly a philosophical decision regarding how to manage wildfires.

The only fires that get put out are on private land. Public land gets a catagorical "let it burn" approach. I don't think that's what the public wants, not everywhere, not every time. But we the public really don't have much say. We don't elect anyone associated with public land wildfire management, at least not on a federal level.

In terms of value... IDK maybe this will pan out, the MEGA fire 10 years ago that nuked this entire area left lots of dead trees. Maybe this will clear those out. But it damn sure isn't going to help summer stream flows, and doesn't help our climate resiliency. Snow is going to melt off faster and there's not a lick of shade on the river.

 

[Irrelevant]

2016 Idaho Pioneer Fire. It started mid July and smoldered for weeks. It was a lightning fire. The decision was to let it burn.

After several weeks, all hell broke lose. It was finally contained in November after snows. 294 square miles burnt and $95 million dollars spent fighting it.

It was close to my house. Luckily the prevailing wind was away from my house. Family watched it burn from our house for months.

2017, Feds closed the burned area to allow logging to occur quickly, although logging still occurred in small areas at a time. Half my elk unit land was inaccessible.

My thoughts are to put out what fires you can, quickly. There’s no reason to pick and choose which fires to fight.

Yeah that one was another horseshit one

 

[SAJ-99]

Public land gets a catagorical "let it burn" approach. I don't think that's what the public wants, not everywhere, not every time.

I can't disagree. But who gets to choose? I heard someone defend wilderness areas and national parks with "We have been manipulating the environment for so long, we don't know what "normal" is anymore." I think these areas are as close as we can get.

 

[Nameless Range]

Few years old, and doesn't speak to how the decisions to close vast swaths of land are made, but it does speak to a narrative I hear all the time that doesn't reflect what I see on the ground. In over a decade on the VFD, we have never had a fire exceed 10 acres in our district, and many of those fires had USFS command after IA.

https://dailymontanan.com/2024/03/28/montana-researchers-say-quick-wildfire-suppression-leads-to-larger-more-intense-fires/

"The U.S. Forest Service estimates that 98% of wildfires are fully suppressed before they reach 100 acres in size – most of them within 72 hours. In Montana, fire managers strive to put wildfires out as quickly as possible; Gov. Greg Gianforte said last year that crews kept 95% of wildfires in Montana to 10 acres or less in 2022."

 

[Schaaf]

Few years old, and doesn't speak to how the decisions to close vast swaths of land are made, but it does speak to a narrative I hear all the time that doesn't reflect what I see on the ground. In over a decade on the VFD, we have never had a fire exceed 10 acres in our district, and many of those fires had USFS command after IA.

https://dailymontanan.com/2024/03/28/montana-researchers-say-quick-wildfire-suppression-leads-to-larger-more-intense-fires/

"The U.S. Forest Service estimates that 98% of wildfires are fully suppressed before they reach 100 acres in size – most of them within 72 hours. In Montana, fire managers strive to put wildfires out as quickly as possible; Gov. Greg Gianforte said last year that crews kept 95% of wildfires in Montana to 10 acres or less in 2022."

Yeah, I wonder if this is regionally different approaches. I can't think of any fires in Montana that have been left to work on their own. In my local area, the CMR gets a bad rap about "letting fires burn" but I've never seen them actually let one burn and every fire I've seen has been a all hands on deck approach with bringing aerial support in and using the reservoir for water.

There's a lot of areas on the refuge I wish they would let burn due to juniper encroachment but I fully understand why they haven't taken that approach.

 

[Irrelevant]

It's got to be a regional difference. Last year, we had the same thing, only even earlier, we had a fire start on Lake Chelan in early June, and they straight up just watched it for 3 days, then when the winds came up, they jumped on it, but at that point it's not going to get controlled. It burned all summer and fall. The north cascades region almost always has 1-4 fires that burn all summer. Efforts are only put on the private land interface.

 

[kwyeewyk]

The only fires that get put out are on private land. Public land gets a catagorical "let it burn" approach.

This is certainly no longer the case in DNR and BLM protection areas, there have been dozens of fires already this year that have been caught small, public vs private is not a factor, it's location and property/resource values at risk that drive those decisions. Every fire that goes beyond initial attack gets a plan in the Wildland Firefighting Decision Support System, if you really want they are available by FOIA.

After Carlton complex in 2014 WADNR got sued and since then they have really stepped up initial attack in their protection areas. Forest Service has some other issues they're dealing with, and fires have become a tool for getting forest management projects that have been stalled by litigation done through alternative methods related to emergency fire management.

 

[Irrelevant]

This is certainly no longer the case in DNR and BLM protection areas, there have been dozens of fires already this year that have been caught small, public vs private is not a factor, it's location and property/resource values at risk that drive those decisions. Every fire that goes beyond initial attack gets a plan in the Wildland Firefighting Decision Support System, if you really want they are available by FOIA.

After Carlton complex in 2014 WADNR got sued and since then they have really stepped up initial attack in their protection areas. Forest Service has some other issues they're dealing with, and fires have become a tool for getting forest management projects that have been stalled by litigation done through alternative methods related to emergency fire management.

Fair point, the DNR does seem to take it seriously. But we had a red flag warning yesterday, two fires started on, or near, private land, both will be put out in the next few days if they're not already. But that Pomas fire was allowed to grow uncontrolled, the entire upper entiat will burn... again. I think their plan is to create the Upper Entiat Prairie.

There does seem to be something to the idea that different forest's manage wildfire differently.
NW Montana:

NC Washington (same scale):

And the WA map doesn't include the Tripod fire which consumed the majority of the Tiffany Range up through Canada in 2006, and that still hasn't recovered.

 

[sapperJ24]

There's been really good discussion so far in this thread so thanks for getting it going. It's pretty fair to question the closure and present strategy.

I can't speak specifically to the Pomas fire and it would be interesting to see the WFDSS for it.

Other large Forest Service wilderness areas have discussed the need for both larger and earlier than usual closure areas. This is being driven by the current reduction in backcountry trail crews that serve in a fire militia capacity. Typically when trail crews are present they can make visitor contacts and sweep trails, but with the lack of personnel, fire managers don't want to risk having a small closure, a big fire day, and no one on the ground.

The post fire effects from a fire scar reburning 10 years later often offer some highly desirable forest characteristics. By 10 years, much of the snag component is on the ground and will carry fire reducing the regen stocking rate. This leaves a clean up forest with wider spaced trees.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Fair point, the DNR does seem to take it seriously. But we had a red flag warning yesterday, two fires started on, or near, private land, both will be put out in the next few days if they're not already. But that Pomas fire was allowed to grow uncontrolled, the entire upper entiat will burn... again. I think their plan is to create the Upper Entiat Prairie.

There does seem to be something to the idea that different forest's manage wildfire differently.
NW Montana:
View attachment 377042
NC Washington (same scale):
View attachment 377043
And the WA map doesn't include the Tripod fire which consumed the majority of the Tiffany Range up through Canada in 2006, and that still hasn't recovered.

There's a big difference in the two areas depicted on the maps, Washington map is centered on the Okanogan valley, which is low elevation transitional shrub-steppe that is at a tipping point in it's fire cycles and the Montana map is higher elevation higher precipitation forest that is probably a decade or two or more behind the Washington area in fire cycle shifting. The Washington area is much more similar to the great basin if you zoom out, it connects all the way down through Yakima, tri cities, etc. Most of those large fires were not allowed to get that big on purpose, 105 degrees with 30 mile per hour winds doesn't allow many options for fighting it. Carlton complex grew from several smolders that were treated as low priority and then blew up. I think DNR learned their lesson on that one. The risk factor for pomas to blow up and burn over 100000 acres of medium density population areas and parts of some small towns like Carlton did is relatively low. But they probably feel like having a large closure buffer buys them some risk mitigation for the agency administrator.