The British Columbia Wildfire Service (BCWS) has been working to contain the 4,230-acre Connell Ridge Fire 14 miles south of Cranbrook since it was reported August 1. It was likely started by lightning.
Crews had already completed burnouts (or planned ignitions) on the south flank and southeast corner but on August 19 a decision had to be made about whether to conduct an additional burnout on the southwest side. After a test burn, the Incident Management Team decided not to conduct the burnout.
The BCWS created the explanatory article and illustrations, below, about some of the considerations and steps taken as the decision was being made. It is rather extraordinary for a land management agency, at least in the United States, to provide this degree of transparency and detail about how a suppression decision was made. This could serve as an example for others to follow, especially when “big box” strategies are used that result in burning thousands of acres of green vegetation, too often with insufficient thought about ignition tactics, second order results, air quality, and long term fire effects.
The article below uses the term “guard” in the first paragraph which I believe in this context refers to a completed control line intended to stop the spread of the fire.
Information Officers on Type 1 Incident Management Teams should be capable of creating valuable content like this:
August 21, 2022
Test ignitions were conducted on the morning of August 19, 2022 on the Connell Ridge (N10989) wildfire, in anticipation of implementing planned ignition operations on the southwest corner. These test ignitions allow our crews and operational staff to determine if the unburnt fuels between the fire perimeter and the guard will be receptive to burning.
The area that the small-scale ignition was planned for is in steep terrain where the fire has been naturally burning in a patchy manner as the fire finds drier fuels that are able to ignite. This means there is a lot of unburnt, greener fuel within this area, between the free burning fires edge and the established control lines.
The purpose of the planned ignition for this area was to remove that unburnt fuel in an intentional way to secure the control line and achieve containment on the southwest ridge of the fire. This unburnt fuel has the potential to burn on it’s own as these greener fuels continue to dry under the hot and dry weather conditions. While the shorter term forecast for the complex shows patches of precipitation, the precipitation will be minimal and is not guaranteed to fall on the fires. With the longer-term forecast returning to a warming and drying trend early next week, these drying green fuels that may not have seen any additional moisture will continue to dry.
Planned ignitions are a very useful tactic in fire suppression and fire management and are often the safer and more efficient operational tactic. It allows us to bring the fire perimeter down to control lines and creates a more uniform and continuous fire edge which is easier for crews to use direct attack methods on and extinguish hot spots to strengthen control lines and achieve containment. This is also more time-efficient and safer for the crews as they have to spend less time chasing hot spots and patches of free burning fire in rough terrain.
Based on test ignitions on August 19 it was determined that the unburnt fuels would not burn in a way that contributes to the strengthening of the existing control line. This means it will take longer to secure this portion of the fire as crews will now need to focus on targeting the patches and hotspots for extinguishment in order to secure this area of the fire.
The Incident Management Team on the Connell Ridge Fire is also working on the Weasel Creek Fire (N11062) and the Cummings Creek Fire (N11051).
I’ve asked an Incident Commander if the public could have access to the flight records of the drones they were using for firing operations. Was told they don’t normally give out that kind of information and left it at that. Back burns, firing operations, planned ignitions, which in my mind all mean the same thing when it comes to its use in fighting wildfires, is a pretty touchy subject in Trinity County, Ca.
I’ve witnessed burning operations that should never have happened because of the predictable consequences that weren’t heeded. I’ve also seen circumstances due to predicted wind events and also a fire breaching a hill to threaten homes where the firing operation was conducted as an emergency burn of last resort when the probability of the wildfire burning through was eminent so an attempt was made to hopefully burn out the fuels in front of it, stopping it in it’s tracks.
The Monument Fire last year where it breached the hill, the hotshot crews lit the ground behind people’s houses and it raced upslope to meet the fire coming down. People were freaked and angry not understanding what the hell the fire crews were doing until they saw the results. It worked and saved their houses.
The wind event example from the previous year’s August Fire had a different result raging through Forest Glen, Mad River, Ruth and beyond. People still blame the FS for doing back burns before a known wind event was to occur. I still see steam coming out of people’s ears when the subject comes up.
Incident Management Teams need to change their mindset in terms of transparency. I understand that to decide to burn isn’t an exact science and not all conditions on the ground are equal to the point that things can go bad even with the greatest intention and thought out plan. To gain the trust of the public, we need more information and in return I like to think that the public will, given a better understanding of the reasoning the Ops people are using, not be so gullible to misinformation going around during high stress times and show more respect for the difficult decisions that have to be made. This would benefit all involved, in my opinion.
And I’ve also witnessed firing operations being used to bring a slow burning backing fire to the control line quicker because of resource issues. If the Team didn’t use the resources they had, they would lose them and there were other budgetary things that was putting pressure to button the fire up. Helicopter was used in the afternoon when the winds pick up and caused very aggressive fuel behavior. They were able to put the last black line on the map sooner than later.
https://youtu.be/yuW9LmvN_Vw
“…especially when “big box” strategies are used that result in burning thousands of acres of green vegetation, too often with insufficient thought about ignition tactics, second order results, air quality, and long term fire effects.”
Why is this insinuating that the people putting fire on the ground are inept, thoughtless, and have zero regard for the repercussions with initiating a “burnout”?
Is there the possibility of a burn not going the way you wanted it? Always. And that can be for reasons within your control or out of it. Are some burns implemented in a way that causes more damage than the actual fire was doing? Yes. You’re right, there does need to be some transparency in what’s planned on a large fire. Is there time to come up with a plan that incorporates everybody from the crew implementing the burn all the way to the IC or even the Forest Supervisor? Not always.
It’s a disservice to the people with years of implementing prescribed fires and managing wildfires while using “big box” tactics to say that they put “insufficient thought” into their plan.
Hi Bill,
You wrote: “The BCWS created the explanatory article and illustrations, below, about some of the considerations and steps taken as the decision was being made. It is rather extraordinary for a land management agency, at least in the United States, to provide this degree of transparency and detail about how a suppression decision was made.”
Snake wrote: “The first picture is telling. “Reprod” in BC which is a plantation is a terrible thing to get going in that jurisdiction.”
Nightfire Owl wrote: “I’m assuming BC Wildfire Management uses the same terminology as Alberta Wildfire Management, which is where I first heard the term.”
You had written: “The article below uses the term “guard,” which I believe in this context refers to a completed control line intended to stop the spread of the fire.” And the BCWS had written: “These test ignitions allow our crews and operational staff to determine if the unburnt fuels between the fire perimeter and the guard will be receptive to burning.”
I use these quotes to establish there exists a communication problem. Several terms seem to have the same definition: “guard” vs. “control line”. “a plantation is a terrible thing to get going in that jurisdiction” vs “if the unburnt fuels between the fire perimeter and the guard will be receptive to burning”. I am not sure if Snake’s comment is related to the BCWS comment. For my concept of BC Canada is that its environment (generally wet) is quite different from that (generally dry) of the Bootleg Fire in Klamath County OR which burned my cabin which I bought and my 20 x 30 ft shed, with its contents, which I had built. But I suspect there was a common factor: lodge pole pine where the Bootleg Fire began. For I have read that much of BC’s timber is lodge pole which naturally grows as thick as hair on a dog’s back. Because its seed cones are activated by a wildfire. And in the BC photos one can see whatever conifers are growing, they are growing close together and the needles of conifers burn rapidly once any flame, with heat, reaches them.
However, the reason I write this comment is not primarily about what I can just written. It is about some details which can be seen about the Bootleg Fire but which I fear might be overlooked. These details prove, I believe, that wildfires can not be prevented. But the size of future wildfires can be limited, I believe, by not completely replanting a continuous forest wherever trees will naturally grow. Instead, leave narrow “guard’ strips between small parcels and maintain these narrow strips by regular maintenance. And in existing forests begin to first harvest timber along wider guard strips. Ect.
A historical fact is North American forests have naturally existed for centuries before white man discovered North American and basically is how Alaskan forests are still being naturally maintained while harvesting mature timber and replanting I believe.
Finally, Bill you do anyone one who appreciates NATURE a great service. So if you would me an address where I might send a check, I would.
Bill, I heartily agree this is valuable for fire people and the general public. Years of science and experience go into such planning, and it’s a very complex series of go & no-go decisions. I agree also with your remark that IMT personnel could/should be compiling these situations to help the media and the public (and the funders in Congress) understand what fire people are talking about and what they’re doing out there on the ground. They don’t have to “dumb it down” to explain it, they just need to abandon all agency-speak and write it in plain language.
You’d never know it to read some agency publications, but there’s actually a law:
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/plain-language-act
The first picture is telling. “Reprod” in BC which is a plantation is a terrible thing to get going in that jurisdiction. All the stars have to align to get that to burn in any meaningful way. Puting fire on the ground is easy, not doing it is the true challenge. Test burns are always the way to go regardless of your experience level IMHO as nature will tell you wether you should continue or not.
Bill, your assumption about “guard” referring to control line is correct. It’s used both for dozer line and hand line. I’m assuming BC Wildfire Management uses the same terminology as Alberta Wildfire Management, which is where I first heard the term.
Another fine example of why I visit this site daily six months a year, and regularly the rest of the year. Bravo, Bill; and Thanks !
An interesting interaction of science and experience. Good job, eh.