Wildfire management LTTE

[Irrelevant]

I'm working on, or maybe just thinking about, writing a letter to the editor about wildfire management.

But there's a few things I don't know enough about to comment appropriately. And I'm always impressed how much knowledge is floating around here, especially on natural resource topics.

I assume how you "fight" a particular fire in a particular location is dictated by some plan?

Is it specific to that forest or region or is it a federal plan?

How much opportunity, if any, does the public get to provide input on that plan?

 

[Nameless Range]

I can only speak to Montana, but I am unaware of plans that exist for fighting fire prior to the ignition of a fire. Like, there is no "If a fire starts here, the plan will be to do X". There might be something like that in Wilderness areas, but the default plan in the vast majority of geographies is to always put the fire out right away.

What dictates fire suppression (or not) response as much as anything is weather, fuels, topography, lives/property, and I suppose, Protection Jurisdiction (meaning, is this fire on USFS protection, State Protection, County Protection, etc). Fire Protection in Montana (who is ultimately responsible for dealing with a start), is complicated as all get out. Here's a link. There are Community Wildfire Protection Plans, that speak to mitigation as well as plans for when the real bad thing happens (evacuation, infrastructure, etc). Here's a different link.

At base though, the default plan for all wildfire is to contain it or put it out ASAP. 95% of fires are beat on initial attack in Montana, and the lion's share of those are first encountered by Volunteer Fire Depts. I am the assistant chief of a VFD. We put every fire that starts out, and the only reasons we wouldn't would be associated with safety or access. Once a fire escapes initial attack, it's typically turned over to resources beyond county ones (state, feds), and their attack plans will be dictated by all of the immediate concerns of fuels, topography, weather, available resources, and property/lives at risk. At that point, plans are the responsibility of Incident Commanders and typically are refreshed daily. "Letting" a fire burn on purpose when it could otherwise be put out just isn't something I am familiar with, and because of both PR and the fact that little fires costing a few thousand bucks to put out can quickly turn into fires costing millions, that makes sense.

Might be different in other places or maybe even in Montana when fires get real big. I'm more familiar with initial attack, and the public doesn't really have any part in that other than bellyaching when it fails (IMO). The overwhelming consensus of the public is that fires need to be put out and opinions to the contrary probably wouldn't be taken too seriously. Not sure that helps.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I don't have time at the moment to elaborate, but look into WFDSS, wildland fire decision support system, there's way more to it than just that, but that is where the decision process is supposed to be documented.

 

[Irrelevant]

I hear you @Nameless but how did we manage to create this problem through a century of fire suppression yet I see fire after fire, year after year, that continue to set records for size, continue to burn homes, continue to fill our skies with debilitating smoke.

The Little Giant fire started by lightning on 7/15, 7/16, rappelers and 22 ground troops were on site. Due to "poor access" they all hiked out on 7/17. The FS also claimed lack of availability for air support. A month and a half later, you have a 150k-acre fire that's burned multiple homes and millions have been spent, thousands of people are assigned. On top of that it's still burning, is still pumping out debilitating smoke, and yet the resources assigned keep declining. We've been told fall rains will put it out. Yet, it's deemed to be a "full suppression" fire.

I also don't see anyone ever mention or discuss the ancillary societal costs of wildfires.
-Health impacts to tens of thousands to millions of people due to unhealthy air quality. Kids in particular don't get to do outside recess, don't get to practice sports, don't get to go to the pool.
-Forest closures for "safety" that are both far in excess of any actual risk to the public, but also just the general inability of the public to access massive swaths of public land year after year. How can we instill a love for the wilderness if you can't access it? What's even worse is that the closures often last multiple years, again based on the "risk" to the public.

Lastly, this seems to be the least democratic process that directly impacts my life. As best I can tell, I get zero say. I suppose you could trace the either the president or my elected Fed reps, but that's more leaps than Evil Kenevil made.

 

[Irrelevant]

If I don't like the service my police or local fire department are providing, I can an ability to make a change, I can vote for a new chief/sheriff. But in this case, I really have no say at all.