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.

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

Ok, you appear to need a .gov account to access.

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

Just off the cuff. I think it is many factors. More fuels (in some places a lack of management and the result of fire suppression) , hotter and drier climate (climate change), far more starts than are natural (88% started by people), and more and more people building in places destined to burn (WUI). But the reason any individual fire takes off is going to be unique. Maybe a bit of it is related to a more modern version of safety (risk much to save much, and much = life). Say I had perfect knowledge, and I have a 99% of sending firefighters into a start and them being successful in putting it out, but a 1% of it blowing up and burning them over, is that worth it? I don't think so. But to the public it looks chickenshit.

I also think people might be surprised how little can be done when it's dry and the wind blows, and the fire triangle of heat, oxygen and fuel turns into an isosceles and pierces everything in front of it. No amount of resources can do anything. I don't know anything about the specific fires you reference. I have a feeling that though we would like some overarching reason for trends and our smoky summers, it's super complicated and variable for every incident.

In 1935, more than two decades after the Big Burn, the great Montanan and early forest ranger who fought that fire wrote: “Has all this effort and expenditure of millions of dollars added anything to human good? Is it possible that it was all a ghastly mistake, like plowing up the good buffalo grass sod of the dry prairies?” I think that is an interesting perspective, and whether it is or isn't doesn't really help today.

I think you as a citizen are right to want recourse, answers, and a say. Particularly on Forest Closures which from what I have seen are kind of BS. I just don't know what you would ask for otherwise.

 

[Irrelevant]

Just off the cuff. I think it is many factors. More fuels (in some places a lack of management and the result of fire suppression) , hotter and drier climate (climate change),

There is far more variability in fuels, moisture and temperature wise, within a season than between seasons. So if fires only started on the days that were "really" hot and dry, beyond the "historic norm" (which is a completely fabricated idea, as there is no such thing, climate is constantly shifting), then yeah I could see that, but that's just not the case. And if you use historic stream flow as a proxy for dry, the last decade isn't any drier than any of the other "bad" periods. Both the 40's and the 70's had periods of more severe drought.

far more starts than are natural (88% started by people), and more and more people building in places destined to burn (WUI). But the reason any individual fire takes off is going to be unique. Maybe a bit of it is related to a more modern version of safety (risk much to save much, and much = life).

This is what I feel has had the biggest impact, we continue to value direct human life higher and higher, and acknowledge but do not account for indirect health impacts.

I also think people might be surprised how little can be done when it's dry and the wind blows, and the fire triangle of heat, oxygen and fuel turns into an isosceles and pierces everything in front of it. No amount of resources can do anything.

Maybe. But I doubt this. We put people on the moon, robots have roamed Mars for years, Ukraine has used tens of millions of unmanned drones, and we have humanoid robots that can outrun humans and manipulate small, precise tools. We can do something, or we can do more when they're small, we choose not to. I'm not sure who is doing that choosing.

 

[SAJ-99]

-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.

That is what leads to suppression and also the complaints every time a controlled burned is planned. I think this is why often there is a point in a fire where they say "it's going the right direction, let it burn" because there is no other way to reduce the fuel load.

 

[Irrelevant]

That is what leads to suppression and also the complaints every time a controlled burned is planned.

Again, show me/us the math. I can't remember a single day of hazardous air quality due to a prescribed fire.

I think this is why often there is a point in a fire where they say "it's going the right direction, let it burn" because there is no other way to reduce the fuel load.

Under that logic, areas that have recently burned wouldn't burn again. Which is patently false.