Today we are continuing an occasional off-topic feature that Bill Gabbert deployed a couple years ago — had been meaning to revive this and JK reminded me. This post can serve as the beginning of an open thread in which readers can talk about issues that we have, or have not, yet gotten into. This is a literally off-topic thread. You have the floor.
The usual rules about commenting do apply, though. And remember, no personal attacks or politics, please. If you haven’t read the rules lately, they are posted HERE.
There are many examples of a wildfire hitting a treated area and slowing or moderating intensity….the question is …who maintains these areas ? The USFS in Nor Cal has been burning standing timber in backfires and wildfires with no followup…no salvage logging, no post fire treatment. We now have hundreds of thousands of acres of brush regrowth with an overstory of snags. As these snags weather and fall they become available fuel so the fuel loading and snag hazard makes direct attack unlikely. Instead of continuing to beat the drum of reintroducing fire into the wildlands, the Federal LMAs should be concentrating in rehabilitation of the huge swaths of burned land in California, starting in and around the communities that still exist.
Right on, Royal, and 15 or 20 years ago the National Fire Plan office in DC had a collection of dozens of these examples, with reports and photos, but I’m pretty sure you’re right that they’ve mostly not been maintained since then. The NFP projects (in some cases) ran big firebreaks (many along powerlines) and RxFire across the West, but I’d bet next week’s taco budget that most of them aren’t maintained since then.
That Firewars PBS special shows an instance in an extreme burning event that the fire encountered a treated area of pondo pine, fire came out of the canopy, burned at low intensity, and was easy to control in that area. Another was on my own property when a wildfire started 1.5 miles away. It was stopped at my property boundary where I had implemented a prescribed fire.
I gotta run. Just got done putting a fan clutch and alternator in our 98 Chevy 3500 brush truck. We need to get our replacement motor in another of our brush trucks. Sinking $5800 into a 2000 Ford F-350 doesnt make alot of sense but when you have a small budget and can’t afford a cab and chassis its what you do. At one point in our spring fire season half our fleet of brush trucks and tenders was OOS for a week for repairs. It seems like we can’t leave the station without something breaking. We are in severe drought and picking up small fires again so gotta get ready to roll in case the drought persists. Last year we responded to 35 wildland fires.
All very good comments, that’s what I enjoy most about this forum, hearing from very dedicated and passionate people, they say that good things come to those that wait, well they have been waiting for generations for that change to come, I thought back in the 90’s that it was going to happen and I guess to a certain extent it did, we cot much better pay in so cal, but good ol Cali inflation swallowed that up in no time, last year I started to think that just maybe it was going to happen, oh no it did not……..I would like to think it’s just not about the money, but money is a very big part of it…..
Sarah, I may not agree with you on everything, but I am very thankful that you and folks like you are out there, you will make a difference……Thanks….
Matt,
“It’s important that people realize that the choice is not between prescribed fire and no fire, the choice ultimately is between prescribed fire and wildfire.”
The USFS quotes different versions of that frequently, but where’s the evidence? Treated areas burn as well, and even if fire behavior at lower burn intensities is modified somewhat by treatments, the really hot “mega-fires” could care less if they encounter treated areas — they just burn it all. These super hot fires. the ones we are concerned about, are promoted by fire weather — heat, wind and dryness. Not to say that fuels are irrelevant, they are just less important these days.
The vast majority of fuel treated areas are not ever encountered by wildfire during the window of time they are effective.
So the reality is, we get prescribed fire and wildfire. There is no choice between prescribed fire and wildfire. That is just a saying.
JK —
“How come no one is talking about, retention, pay reform, recruitment and all the many unfilled fire positions.”
Like most who post on this forum, I have been supporting for a long time that firefighters must be paid much more. Then we will have more firefighters and experienced ones will stay on. It’s a huge part of what is needed to protect our forests and communities. I am co-founder of a conservation organization, so come with a certain perspective that not all who comment here may agree with/ But I am genuinely trying to figure out what is most true about what forests and communities need, and what is the best course of action. I think the answers need to be cobbled together from a number of perspectives.
I think paying firefighters sufficiently is critical. This makes me realize, that an organization and website dedicated to forest ecology and protecting communities should have some major focus on that. When I come across a good, recent article about it, I will put it on The Forest Advocate, theforestadvocate.org. We are a small organization, but our website is viewed by members of the conservation community, and it all can help. It just needs to keep getting put out there.
To me, being a firefighter is such an honorable and valuable profession, and people think they respect and appreciate them, but as long as we are accepting they are so underpaid, while subjecting themselves to danger, long, hot, exhausting stints, and health impacts from smoke inhalation. plus more that those of us who don’t fight fires would even know about, we are not respecting and appreciating them.
I like to read Wildfire Today because I like to hear the perspectives of those who are “on-the-ground,” who see first-hand what is going on. I think things have gotten to the point where we really need to stick less to our long-held perspectives and find common ground. The USFS, as an agency, seems to have really gotten out-of-control in a way that is endangering our forests and communities. And at the same time they may be sincerely trying to face an almost unsolvable problem. And it’s all certainly a reflection of bigger issues, and I don’t fully understand what those issues are, but it might fall in the realm of politics, which discussing is reasonably barred by posting rules.
The rule on politics has lightened up a bit lately, Sarah, but rule-breaking besides that is still discouraged, and after repeated warnings there will be consequences.
JK,
That quote is from Fire Wars which was a PBS special sometime around 2001-2003 timeframe.
Its all going to burn. Thats how mother nature designed it. The only question is when and on what terms. Mother Nature always wins no matter how smart we think we are.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/
I stand with Royal Burnett, he has the documentation. But no one cares !!
What we are leaving for our children and grandchildren is millions and millions of acres of burnt landscape, but no one cares !!
Sarah… the documentation is in the form of photos and text and I don’t think this forum is the correct place to display it. I have shared it with Frank Carroll and the Call to Action group. If you have a legitimate need other than curiosity contact me.
>>> How come no one is talking about, retention, pay reform, recruitment
Firefighters are not YET negotiating with a “Hard Edge”.
Wait till a wildfire is bearing down on the “Some People are More Equal than Others” crowd in Atherton or Stanford or Portola Valley.
Then GO ON STRIKE.
The US does not appear to have the common sense to properly value the Contribution & Sacrifice of the Wildland Firefighters.
I also suggest that the Spouses & Families of those Firefighters who have committed Suicide be consulted.
e.g. the Family of Ryan Mitchell, 1982 – 2017.
https://wildfiretoday.com/2017/11/07/we-lost-another-firefighter/
https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/firefighter-suicide-california-fires/
How come no one is talking about, retention, pay reform, recruitment and all the many unfilled fire positions, I would think this way more important than this other stuff…. Oh I know we are not decisions makers, or at I know that I am not…..but just maybe some of you can have some influence, And who knows a lot of GS-15/SES types may look at this forum, or maybe one or two do………
It’s important that people realize that the choice is not between prescribed fire and no fire, the choice ultimately is between prescribed fire and wildfire.
-William Tweed
Not real sure the date of the unquotable quote, I firmly believe that RX fire as it is currently being implemented is a complete waste of time and taxpayer money, we never ever and I mean never burn on the scale that is needed to make a difference, and this is where I agree Militia Bro, just look at historical return intervals for many of these ecosystems, are we keeping up…lol…..heck no we are not…..use the money to support defensible space, stop building in fire prone areas (Never Going to Happen)…..
There is no real accountability, the fed resource agencies for the most part operate in a very insulated bubble, once in a while congress will a little interest and throw out unrealistic goals/targets along with a few bucks, but where is the real oversite, they were concerned or at least seemed to be when it was brought to their attention last year that there are real retention issues, folks are leaving in droves….help…..help…..what do we do!…..Oh let’s give them a retention bonus that is about to go away……Who really cares about any of this stuff…..definitely not the majority us, we are concerned about making a living and trying to put food on the table, we really don’t give a flip about your poor tree’s.
The bureaucracy is way out of control and has been forever, no one can really keep up with all the red tape, policy, directives, would be great to wipe the slate clean, take out the trash, restock with only useful tools, as I said no one is really toeing the line, how can they, there is way more red tape than folk to implement said red tape…..something has to go…….
Another one of my rants in the history books…..lol….
It’s important that people realize that the choice is not between prescribed fire and no fire, the choice ultimately is between prescribed fire and wildfire.
-William Tweed
So sorry Militia Bro. I don’t agree with what you believe needs to be done, but I feel your sincere pain. The people in the areas around the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire, with their homes and forest burned to a crisp by over-zealous prescribed burns feel that pain too. I feel that pain when I look at aggressively thinned and over-burned areas that look more like savanna than forest now, and will never recover because the USFS plans to do such aggressive treatments indefinitely. It’s complicated.
JK,
Not trolling, it’s what I believe. Not expecting other to believe it or even say that I am right.
From my 20 fire seasons and my endless work on NEPA teams that never really hits the ground or at a scale that is pathetic and orders of magnitude too slow.
The scientific research for decades has stated fire is a critical part of many ecosystems and we continue with our military/fire complex of suppression. And before formalized science we knew this as well. I am a hypocrite because I feed at the trough as well.
But there is a whole burned in my heart from landscapes I have seen burned up and the unburned landscapes so removed from fire, we’ll never have the will to recover them. My kids will never experience them, it’s a tragedy.
Drones for firing operations, all day, all night. We just need bigger ones and more of them.
I have been part of many wildfires where all low and moderate burn severity was counted towards target. Made me sick.
We need radical thoughts and actions to bring things back.
Can you provide some?
I misspoke… its also an ecological atrocity. Yes, I have documentation.
Hi Royal,
Do you have any documentation of the extent of those backfires? Not that those can be considered backfires, those are likely largely firing operations to implement fuels treatments without NEPA.. I know it’s hard to get documentation, but we need it.
I agree it’s an ecological disaster. There is judicious burning, done in the right way and time, and then there is crazy burn it all fast as they can. In some areas forests are not regenerating after large hot fires.
If anyone of you could go on the ground and see the effect of the backfires that have been conducted in Northern California in the past few years you would be appalled. Much of the one million acre August complex was backfire…it is said that more than 600,000 acres of the 950,000 acre Dixie fire was backfire… 70% of Lassen NP was burned in the Dixie fire and almost all of that in backfire. The list goes on…thousands of acres of standing timber burned in both the River Complex and the Monument fire. This is not forest management or fire management…it’s an ecological disaster. It will take our forests hundreds of years to recover…our streams are silting in and very little forest rehab work is being performed on National Forest or NPS land. Drive through the Dixie burn and see snag patches that go for miles…drive up the Sacramento River Canyon and see burned timber waiting for the next fire… drive from Redding to Coast see the effect of reckless use of fire as management tool. This is insanity !
JK,
You are so right, it’s on all of us. I wasn’t singling out burn bosses, or any others involved in prescribed burns. Too much fire suppression, too much building in the WUI, whatever contributions we make to a warming climate, clear-cut logging, fuels treatments done in a heavy handed way, OHVs in the forests, over-grazing, ect. It must be a very difficult position to be in to implement prescribed burns. I think there is too much pressure from up the chain of command to just get burns done.
I am hoping to help preserve some intact forest for the next generation, as I think many are. I hope some young people will understand how important and life-giving forests are, feel a real connection to them and and want to preserve them. I think we have to leave them at least something to work with. Being a good steward of the forest is complicated now. I would say, first do no harm.
Sarah, it’s all on us, we are commissioned by a higher power to be good stewards, and for the most part we are not being good stewards. Most of our country’s population do not have a connection to nature, we need to raise future generations to have an understanding of our natural ecosystem, as or even more important than reading and writing. When folks like us are no longer around, then what…..really……I may be way off, but what if I’m not. One of my children loves the outdoors, and is one that will be a good steward….they are fewer and fewer these days…..or not…..We have very good intentions, no body wakes up in the morning and says, sure would be great if we lose the burn today, but we are mere humans that make some really big mistakes, we are to blame, good bad or other………When one of our RXB’s is sued in civil court….then where do we go……I have been that person who has decided to put fire on the ground with that nagging feeling…..what the heck are you doing. Hope it works out….what a horrible feeling and horrible position to be in…….Get R Done…..Aughhhhhhh!
R,
Well yes. Frank Carroll is highly knowledgeable about this subject and his comments are important.
McD71,
If drones are used for “normal” back burns, and they protect firefighters, then I think they are well used. But since some of these firing ops are so excessive and not analyzed or well-planned, I think drones are put to very bad use in executing them.
Thanks for the forum. I do wish this site and Frank Carroll could come to terms on a way to allow his comments to become a permanent part of these discussions.
Drones for firing operations? What are your thoughts?
Sarah, add to your list the Lewiston , California RX burn started on the very last day of the prescription contract , on an order of the BLM Supervisor, on a day so extreme that the initial ignition escaped within minutes in which it burned down three quarters of the Town of Lewiston, in the 80’s if I remember correctly.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Errors-Caused-Lewiston-Fire-Trainee-planned-2918200.php
https://famprod.nwcg.gov/batchout/IMSRS_from_1990_to_2022/1999/19990706IMSR.pdf [PDF]
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/31/us/controlled-blaze-that-wasn-t-haunts-firefighters-in-california.html
Joe,
All burned acres are counted as acres treated, with or without NEPA. I have been told this by retired USFS personnel.
JK,
“The various ecosystems are in the process of self correcting/healing, made evident by the continued occurrence of widespread mega fires……give it a generation or two……big holes are be created….should have a very nice mosaic pattern soon…..it took us 100+ years to get us here it will take a 100+ years to repair…”
I agree, and yet for us it will be very painful. I believe we can help a little and it’s well worthwhile to do so, but we can’t stop this fundamental trend, which is nature re-balancing itself and adapting to current climate conditions. And a lot of it is due to our own mistakes.
Do managed fires contribute to the number of acres treated if those acres are in an area where the nepa is complete and a rx is planned (at some point)?
Militia Bro, Really….or just stirring the stink pot….I think the later……
I kind of think I should not respond to your comments, only to say that you are right…..no body in leadership would ever go for this….at least I hope not…..
I have always appreciated your comments, and yes this one as well…..I mean no disrespect….
The various ecosystems are in the process of self correcting/healing, made evident by the continued occurrence of widespread mega fires……give it a generation or two……big holes are be created….should have a very nice mosaic pattern soon…..it took us 100+ years to get us here it will take a 100+ years to repair……Peace……
After 20 years of working on vegetation management in the Forest Service, my conclusion is to F NEPA and all the tape. Declare an emergency and put fire on the ground across the West. Cut trees, masticate, restore meadows, restore aspen stands, and most importantly let fire do work.
We will never have the fortitude and the boldness and the leadership to do it. I’ll never help black line for a 10,000 acre burn. My kids will pay the price for our weakness and lack of vision.
Kelly, I don’t know the acreage. The total acres burned in the Black Fire was 325,000 acres. To me, based on ArcGIS maps, from where the firing ops started to the south going up to the main fire, looks like maybe 35% or so, of that. I am still trying to find a way to get verification from the USFS of the extent of the firing ops that occurred during the Black Fire, but it’s not easy since a FOIA request in Region 3 can take years. But since the USFS has stated in their briefings re the Pass Fire and Comanche Fire that they did utilize firing ops to expand the fires, and they made it very clear during the Comanche Fire that the expansion was an intentional burn operation, I feel pretty clear that what we can see on the ArcGIS maps to the south of the Black Fire are also firing operations to carry out intentional burning that amounts to fuels treatments. Still, I want the USFS documents so we know for sure.
Here is an example of this re the Comanche Fire in the Carson NF, a briefing from June 21. The day before this briefing, the USFS stated they were aerial firing with drones. In this briefing the USFS states (in the box) that they have completed (not contained) 1% of the operation at 99 acres. The containment perimeter is about 10,000 acres. So they are expanding a small lightening strike fire to many times it’s original size.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/carson/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD1115619
And here is a map of the Comanche Fire burn plan. Looks like burn units.
https://ftp.wildfire.gov/public/incident_specific_data/southwest/GACC_Incidents/2023/2023_Comanche/GIS/Products/06162023/Comanche_Briefing_06162023.pdf
John,
Limits on burnouts needs to be carefully considered by a range of experts, so I can’t answer that. The firing operations that occurred in the Aldo Leopold wilderness during the Black Fire started 10 miles upwind (based on prevailing winds) of the main fire. I think we can safely say that was not a real part of managing the fire. So I would say that 10 miles upwind of a fire is too much.
And yes, there needs to be a policy limit on what fire managers do. They can’t justify starting a separate fire 10, 20 or 30 miles away, so there needs to be some parameters.
I agree that policy is difficult to formulate because of unintended consequences. But that doesn’t mean we don’t need policy.
Type conversion is speeded up by large, hot wildfires, so let’s not cause them. Some high severity patches are ecologically beneficial, but not huge hot burns.
I suggest we should only use prescribed fire when it is very safe, and of course there are no guarantees. Both the Hermits Peak and Cerro Grande fires were caused by prescribed burns carried out under highly risky conditions. The Calf Canyon pile burn escape was virtually the repeat of a smaller escape in the same area of the Gallinas watershed in 2019, despite a FLA having been completed. So clearly standards need to be tightened.
When fire policy is not working, as is clearly true in NM and in other areas, then yes, it should be modified.
How many acres are you talking about, Sarah?
Hi JK.
“Just maybe we should focus our efforts on community protection and once again Fight Fire Aggressively having provided for safety First….”
Maybe that, and also allow genuine managed wildfire for resource benefit to occur only when it is clearly safe(r), and according to much more defined standards. And maybe just implement some prescribed burns in very key areas, when it is clearly safe(r). Just stop with the treatment quotas and the USFS strategy to increase fuels treatments to 4X the current levels, which provides an incentive to do risky wildfire expansions and prescribed burns when conditions are not optimal.
And stop turning smaller wildfires into big fires with firing operations, and then represent the expansions as part of the wildfire, which skews our understanding of what is even happening. Expanding wildfires miles from the original fire are fuels treatments, not wildfire management. Congress, stop providing funds earmarked for huge amounts of fuels treatments, when it’s no longer viable, and which puts pressure on the USFS to get more and more burning done in risky ways, whether it’s expanding wildfires or doing prescribed burns. Instead, pay our firefighters a living wage, and consider some real forest restoration that helps to hold moisture into the forest. Moist forests burn less.
We all know some real pain is coming, but let’s not make it worse with ill-planned fuels treatments that the USFS cannot carry out consistently safely due to lack of agency capacity and smaller good burn windows.
Sarah, You made so many different points its hard to know where to start, but here are a few thoughts:
1) Policy is difficult to formulate because there are often unintended consequences. I think the legislators who passed NEPA in 1969 would be amazed at what is required today, and specifically how it limited fuels treatments over the past 30 years. Specifically what kind of limits on burn outs are you suggesting — and are you suggesting them for a particular area or agency, or are you proposing them for every fire?
2) Much of your concern appears to be based on your belief that burnouts on the Black Fire were unneeded because the wildfire would never have burned those areas. I don’t know enough about the Black Fire to debate that one way or the other, but I will say in my 30+ years working wildfires, managed fires, and prescribed fires I was often surprised at where fires stopped and where they ended up — particularly in the last 10 years as climate and fuels factors combined to create conditions that I had never seen before. Are you proposing fire managers have to justify burnouts by somehow showing there is some probability that the wildfire would burn that area with out a burn out? What probability threshold would be sufficient – the politicians and public generally demand a 100% probability that the lines will hold, and are unwilling to accept less.
3) Of course many many areas are type converting after wildfires these days, but that there is more the result of climate change than wildfires. We are witnessing a massive migration of vegetation types as they adapt to climate change. Excluding fire from areas isn’t practical and would only delay the inevitable.
4) There is always a risk of escape with prescribed fires. Are you suggesting that we should only use prescribed fire if we can guarantee its success? If so, there will be no more prescribed fire. What other method do you suggest we use to mitigate fire risk? Many of us have been proposing to manage wildfire as you suggested to contain the fire to protect communities and other values but allow it to burn elsewhere. Many federal lands have had tremendous success with this method, but there are no guarantees. Burnouts are essential to protecting communities and other values, and also trying to manage the impacts of smoke on the public.
Unfortunately, there are no easy answers any more other than to support those who are doing their best to manage this situation and to realize that there will be times when there are human mistakes or when the fire and conditions simply overwhelm our capacity.
Which point are we arguing here? Managed Fire? Prescribed Fire? Indirect Tactics? These are all very different management actions which all require some form of analysis; be it through the NEPA process, through the agency specific Land Management Plan, or through a Delegation of Authority to an IMT (where the majority of indirect tactics occur).
It’s pretty clear there is a considerable amount of hyperbole being postured as facts throughout this discussion.
That’s pretty much the point of the “Staging Area” here, JustAFuelsGuy, and as long as you stick to the RULES (Hi Frank) then hyperbole’s fine.
I have to agree with Papa Hotshot….
The FS has had it’s fair share of watershed moments concerning escaped RX, when will we just say no to RX, these things have become really big deals in how they impact said communities, where’s the concern for them, are we really ever held accountable and I sincerly mean accountable, I have an opinion, however I will let you all be the judge of that question.
We can never burn to the degree that it will prove truly beneficial, if we are honest then we would all agree that to be true and valid….NM has really established some real history when it comes to RX, both good and not so….
When I was working in so cal I came to a crossroads concerning RX, with the high fire occurrence and level of burn severity it became very clear to me that large landscape burns were way to risky, within minutes of a burn crossing containment lines you are burning down homes, I have seen it firsthand…..I support defensible space, mechanical treatments, pile burning and like management practices….
My background is nearly 100% suppression, a good part of my career was spent on so cal shot crews, our mission was very clear when we were in south ops, put the fire out!!!!!! It only became a bit murky when we left home, never ever any fun getting parked on a fire that is only going out when the snow fly’s…
We continue to make decisions that impact the taxpayers, some of the stories coming out of NM our heart breaking, there is no fixing that.
And having all of the ologist in the world on site does not insure that things are going to go smoothly, everyone and I do mean everyone has an opinion….We write burn plans to insure we stay in prescription, let us not forget that it is us writing these things, and they truly are subjective and altogether variable in their application…..
How many more of these do we have to see before we say enough, these things do not last very long with the national media…only ever good for a 24 hour news cycle, and most of us know nothing of the USFS…..Nothing….so then who cares…..well certainly not enough of us……just a quiet and still voice for the most part……
Just maybe we should focus our efforts on community protection and once again Fight Fire Aggressively having provided for safety First….
Just my 2 cent worth….just an old retiree that still kinda cares just a little, yes just a little…..If I cared to mush my BP would go back up, and it’s been real good since I retired……lol…..Peace
There is also a significant difference between doing robust pre-planning for major burns and reacting to an incident. One of the best success stories I can think of was an area that was deemed too risky for a PB situation due to National Parks, Provincial Lands, major highway and First Nation concerns. But the planning was not discarded and was pre-identified, with full sign off acknowledging the need for fire, in case of a natural start occurring. Several years later a small fire occurred and rather than try to contain it the old PB burn plan was dusted off, a quick double check with all involved agencies to ensure no major changes, and then a large scale ignition program was used to expand the fire to meet the original PB conditions and extent. This is a excellent model for many areas that may require extreme conditions to burn in the first place.
On the other hand I’ve been on too many fires where the answer to resource protection was “burn it off” because it was “easier or fireline safety” but no consideration of alternatives was made. When I see 100,000 acres being written off as “unsafe” it tells me folks are not looking at options and are not thinking. Fireline safety is key and while I don’t see enough use of line ignition there is also a balance between a) should manpower even be there if it’s that dangerous and b) before we burn do we understand what we are trading off and c) are we burning as a crutch for other issues such as manpower shortages?
John, re this statement — “Federal fire policy was modified to allow fires, or parts of fires, to be managed for resource benefit to give fire managers another tool to try to get ahead of the fuels curve, and to increase cost effectiveness.”
Do you think there should be some defined limits on how much fires can be expanded, or should the USFS be allowed to start virtually separate fires in the vicinity of a wildfire, as they apparently did to the south of the Black Fire last year? That was not a back burn. It was just an opportunistic fuels treatment, and had nothing to do with emergency fire suppression.
Making fuels treatment decisions after a fire has commenced doesn’t give the agency time to consider all the cost/benefits. And dropping incendiary devices in areas a distance from a fire isn’t actually managing a fire for resource benefit. They are burning where the fire would likely not have burned otherwise, so they are just creating fire, which is an intentional burn. Such burns do rightfully and legally require NEPA analysis, and public input.
The public can’t just trust the USFS, the same agency who brought us the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire and other escaped prescribed burns — along with Cerro Grande, which was ignited by a federal agency, the NPS. Both the Hermits Peak and Cerro Grande Fires were ignited negligently, during periods of high spring winds, even while members of the public warned them that it was too risky to start a prescribed burn at the time.
As long as our “federal fire policy,” which one could argue is so vague that it’s hardly a fire policy, does not define what is allowable and with what kind of process, there will be so much room for human misjudgment and error. Citizens will not trust the USFS at all, especially when private properties get burned in the process, sometimes along with post-fire flooding. Some landscapes do not regenerate well after wildfires these days and can type convert, even if other landscapes may be benefited. Setting fires nearby wildfires during hot and windy fire seasons (such as when the Black Fire was expanded) may simply be a very bad idea. Intentional burns need to be considered in advance.
The fix for too much fire suppression may not be to burn as fast (and recklessly) possible. That may just be piling on another grave mistake on top of previous ones. The USFS does not currently have the agency capacity to expand burning even more. Maybe there is a more judicious and legally-sanctioned way to go about it.
One suggestion is to return to REAL managed wildfire for resource benefit, which is just to minimally contain the fire enough to protect communities but otherwise allow it to burn naturally if safe to do so. Stop with the aerial and ground firing operations to expand fires. It’s dangerous and rather nihilistic.
Frank, I’m sorry that you do nothing more than carry the Fed. Line of BS ! You’ve done a great job of lying to the politicians and to us the taxpayers, who own these lands by the way !! Managed Fire does not work, except to burn more acreage, Period !
Great perspectives and dialog regarding our goto tool in directing, containing, suppressing wildland fire; Firing-out, Burning-out, Backfiring, etc…
Hearing some of the language that comes from too many ologists and “Fire Managers” who spend more time in meetings and classroom and less time with boots on the ground at an incident, has always amazed me. The environment doesn’t change radically in a decade or two, yet that is a crutch for explaining poor decision making on when, and when not, to put fire on the ground as a suppression tool.
My “Fire Seasons” started months earlier than they do now. The time was utilized to physically and educationally bring the Firefighters up to par after their well deserved couple months of rest (our seasons rarely ended before Dec 31). This included a regular, healthy grooming of our natural environment through Rx Burning and/or physical removal. Half of our over-zealous, Rx Burning at an Incident where conditions are at their worst, and way out of any Rx Burn constraints, is purely due to poor fuels management and deep, suppression funding, pockets.
A complete review of past and present issues needs to occur. We need to return to funding pre-season fuels management, and retrain many managers and teams in aggressive, early use of fire as a suppression tool, and drop the Rx Firing Out methods on Incidents, which is occurring too often with deleterious effects on the environment. Let’s return to its appropriate Firing Out, backburning, etc…techniques and quit turning moderate incidents into catastrophic Disasters.
As a side note, the current initial response times and direct actions on an incident have elongated beyond reason. Effective Command/Control/Suppression
is directly related to Time On Scene. The entirety of how we staff and pay our Wildland Firefighters is ridiculous. A slightly beefier, staffed 24/7 (akin to a municipal staffing pattern) concept needs to be seriously looked at in many of our NF/NP areas around the country, especially the West. It maintains a more “ready force” that’s engaged and can respond as such. That’s all this old career Fireman has for now.
I have no problem maximizing acres or burning ten miles off the main fire. I was a hotshot for six years. The safety of my peers and other ground pounders has always been on my mind. I Have a natural resource management degree and an environmental science degree (they are just pieces of paper). Sometimes the risk vs reward is more favorable burning off of old forest roads ten miles away.
Applying NEPA to fuels and RX is a joke. Most fuels programs see it as an obstruction. WHO in their right minds wants to be a prescribe fire specialist and harm the environment or would write a burn plan without consulting timber, range, wildlife, weed and pest? Putting fire on the ground whenever we can is a good thing. A few trees are going to get nuked. I applaud the districts and zones that choose to take on the arduous task of building programmatic NEPA.
From a historic fire perspective how much of this country was burned for thousands of years by native americans? Take for example the pondo forests of the black hills. It is all a crap shoot. You can’t make everyone happy. You are dammed if you do.
Interesting conversation on wildfires and burnouts. I suspect most of us could agree that, in a perfect world, NEPA compliant prescribed fires would be used exclusively to return fire to the landcape, and reduce the risks of future wildfires. Unfortunately, our world is far from perfect, and wildfire and fuels issues only get worse over time despite the considerable money and rhetoric invested over the past 30 years to increase the amount and effectiveness of prescribed fire.
Federal fire policy was modified to allow fires, or parts of fires, to be managed for resource benefit to give fire managers another tool to try to get ahead of the fuels curve, and to increase cost effectiveness. It has been used with great success in many areas, but it isn’t applicable everywhere or under every possible set of conditions. Burnouts are a powerful tactic that can be used to mitigate many wildfire risks including safety and smoke management, but can also have negative effects if not managed well.
From my perspective, I hope to see fire managers take greater advantage of both of these tools as they try to dig us out of the mess we have gotten ourselves in. However, I would like to see better training in how to better manage these tools. We should be cheering on those fire managers who are taking advantage of any tool they have, and giving them the training and support they need to succeed.
Frank, some managed fires work out and some do not. It shouldn’t be hit and miss.
NEPA is not a optional process which the FS can do if they feel they have time and it’s not too expensive. It’s required by law. It’s so that the agency can avoid creating ecological disasters. It’s so the agency can “look before they leap.” Having specialists on the ground after the burn is initiated doesn’t suffice.
Even though the two prescribed burns that caused the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire were analyzed by an EA (should have been an EIS,) the EA was very outdated, from 2005! The EA did not consider the warming and drying conditions. That disaster illustrates how wrong intentional burns can go. Come have a walk around those burn scars, talk to the rural folks who have lost everything and not been compensated, and then decide if NEPA is optional and/or unnecessary.
In this day and age you can’t let a natural ignition just burn naturally since the fuels are not in a natural state. The only monitoring you should be doing is if the fire is in some area you can’t successfully engage in. You better have a plan to apply fire sooner rather than later and not suck up fire suppression resources for months. Tell it how it is, more low intensity fire on the landscape is good for all no matter what we are calling it, way more positives than negatives.
Having the “ologists” present gives a professional, educated view of what fire will do to the landscape, local species of plants/animals, waterways, and archy sites… all those folks are and will be present at managed fires and all campaign fires. No time for NEPA, and quite honestly NEPA costs A LOT of money and time to complete… Managed/RX fires are not some gathering in the woods of yellow shirts looking to rip fire through the land scape… Next time you call the PIO, get some further info on what is taking place and the players involved.
LD… I encourage you to walk the perimeter/interior of another managed fire, the North Fire in the San Mateo’s off HWY 107, near Magdalena, NM… its been 6 years and the land scape is thriving. The perimeter/interior of the Pass fire will look the same in due time. Not generations…. Before telling people to get off their asses – I suggest you get off the internet and catch some fresh air in a recently managed landscape, it’ll do you good
Sarah is spot on ! The excuse of a wildfire is being used as a way to circumvent existing policies, rules and laws, simple as that ! Many of the past “mega-fires” are an example of this strategy, with many having backburns, back fires, firing out, etc., with those acres being much greater than the actual Fire acres ! All under the guise of “safety “ Back fires ten miles away ! That’s pure BULLSHIT !
If your Forest plan is to burn X amount of acres per year, get off your asses and do the work and get the RX done but don’t lie to the public and the un-educated politicians about what and why you are intentionally burning up the citizens National Parks and National Forests . And certainly, don’t do the RX in the midst of summer, what the hell is the matter with you !!!
Some of these lands will not be returned to the present state for one or even two generations due to slow growth, eg., weather, altitude etc.
The amount of snag patch acreage across these lands are cumulative and are adding thousands more every year.
Managed fire is certainly NOT the way to go !!
No matter how well executed an RX it was, it was not done with a NEPA process. That is what i am recommending. We have NEPA for a reason.
You can’t do NEPA on the spot. NEPA is a public process that takes some time. I don’t know what you mean by “I’m curious if you had asked the PIO if there were biologists/archeologists/fire ecologists present and scouting out the Pass fire to consider the NEPA.” It would never occur to me to do such a thing since NEPA is not possible that way.
Most people cannot travel to each wildfire, nor should we be tramping around where a fire is being “managed.” Yet we can still have an opinion about the importance of both NEPA and transparency with the public, and that the ecological effects, along with the effects on the human environment, of the RX actions be considered.
Sarah… I’m curious if you had asked the PIO if there were biologists/archeologists/fire ecologists present and scouting out the Pass fire to consider the NEPA… they were 🙂 and looking at the map and knowing that landscape I can say to Mark, right place, right time was very realistic. The Pass fire’s behavior, was that of a perfectly executed RX. Consuming heavy ground fuels and leaving a large amount of canopy fuels with minimal torching. Arm chair quarterbacking is an easy thing to do. I encourage both of you to get on scene of the incidents you wish to critique, before writing paragraphs of your perspective on how things should be done.
Thanks so much for that clear perspective, Mark. I wonder sometimes what the original ignitions even has to do with the subsequent fires, except to provide a cover to undertake an intentional burn without NEPA. We need a clear and open process. Managed fire for resource benefit means allowing the fire to burn naturally if it can, without aerial or ground firing operations to keep it going. With fire lines, etc. of course, to protect communities.
The USFS needs to be straight with the public. They are at least starting to openly state what they are doing, as they did to at least a greater extent during the Pass Fire and more so during the Comanche Fire in NM. I called the USFS about the Pass Fire and spoke with a now retired information officer. She told me that the map with the purple perimeter that the USFS released on their Facebook page was where they expected the fire to go to. And the fire did subsequently fill in that perimeter, with the help of aerial and ground firing operations. It seems clear that the USFS intended that the fire should expand out to the designated perimeter, it wasn’t just a very accurate prediction. But then in the Comanche Fire, the USFS was very clear this was an intentional burn operation and that they had a plan as to how many acres they were going to expand the fire to.
There should be consideration of the ecological effects of each fire that is ignited or expanded, and the public should be able to weigh in. And there should be consideration of the health effects to the public from so much smoke. There is a haze over the west much of the year, and much of it is caused by the USFS. Firefighters, do you like participating in this? I know there is a lot of support for managed wildfire for resource benefit, and I support it too, but what the USFS is doing now is not that. It’s fuels treatments, planned on the spot and with no real analysis process or public engagement. What’s next?
BTW, re fires like that Black Fire that were likely largely intentionally set, isn’t that skewing our research into the impacts of climate change? A wildfire that burned “naturally” is very different than a fire actually expanded to perhaps double it’s size, or more, by the USFS. At the very least, the maps that get produced of the fire perimeter at the end of the fire needs to indicate which parts of the fire were ignited by the USFS.
I agree with Sarah on the so called Managed Fire, taking a natural ignition to basically conduct a large Rx burn while utilizing the bottomless pit of fire suppression funds. I have watched the progression of fires on ArcGIS also and laugh when I see the main fire that has not really moved for days, with control lines on the downwind side of the fires to limit fire progression, then see burning along a road many miles from the main fire and drop points designated indicating the extent of the box to be burned out. One fire even had burn blocks associated with it. What is really interesting is hearing updates given by the FS stating fire is being allowed to naturally burn across the landscape but in reality is burning mainly by applying fire via ground and/or aerial ignition. I have even heard a fires containment at less than 50% when the only thing natural was the ignition and the rest burned. If you are lighting it shouldn’t it be 100% contained? If not then something is wrong. I always thought a good fire program would take a natural ignition and apply basic fire principles to let fire burn across the landscape while applying fire appropriately to limit burn severity based on fire behavior components of fuels, weather, and topography.
I believe natural fires are being so called managed like Rx burns in order to meet targets that are arbitrarily applied to the forests due to the need to manage our unnatural forest conditions that have occurred due to past failed management practices and the ever increasing severity of current fires and the impacts on the ever expanding interface areas. I am sure this was not the intent of fire ecologists for use of natural conditions and think by stretching the policy to meet targets we are opening ourselves up to unintended consequences down the road. A fire that is being managed as an Rx burn that gets out of control will have the litigants and lawyers chomping at the bit to determine the root cause. And as we consistently see, the agencies will then have to create new constricting policies due to overzealous actions. Remember NM last year?
If we are going to let fires burn naturally on the landscape lets do it in the right place, at the right time, for the right reasons. PIO’s need to be honest with their messages and the agencies open about the process. The public is not as dumb as we may think they are and poor outcomes can lead to unwanted consequences.
Yes, I have been in fire for 40+ years and have seen the changes in fire policy, forest management, and the changes in forest and fire managers – some good, some bad. I have even turned down assignments to be part of the organizations managing these fires due to my disagreement with the philosophy. I cannot be a part of something I do not agree with.
I hope more people chime in on this discussion and that it is happening on a district, forest, regional, and national level as we need to do something to change the state of our natural environs, but we need to do it right!
I am wondering what people think about the USFS utilizing firing operations to greatly expand wildfires. There is evidence that this occurred in a big way last year in NM, during the Black Fire — that a whole large section was lit up to the south (upwind) of the main fire, starting about 10 miles away. That fire was eventually merged with the main fire, and it was all called a wildfire. This can be seen from ArcGIS maps, although it’s very difficult to get the actual records and maps because a substantive FOIA request in Region 3 can take years.
Recently, during the Pass Fire in the Gila, which was managed with a contain and control strategy, a large section of pinon/juniper forest was ignited with aerial ignitions. This was stated in the daily fire updates. Same thing happened soon after, during the Comanche Fire in the Carson NF — more aerial ignitions to expand the fire. This time, the USFS did not even express their progress in managing the fire as percentage contained, but as percentage completed — essentially a very big prescribed burn.
All this is done without NEPA or any real advance planning. Seems very risky, and it seems to circumvent any public process re fuels treatments. These intentional fire expansions are much more fuels treatments than fire suppression, even though federal emergency fire suppression funds are used for the operations.
Maybe we need a revised national wildfire strategy.
I have this poem posted on my wall, and thought of Bll G. when I saw it today, and to all others we’ve lost.
I SAW YOU UP THE MOUNTAIN
I saw you up the mountain.
Walking through the haze.
In sooted turnouts dusty yellow.
Cast dark against the blaze.
I’m sure I did. You can’t be missed!
You are someone I know.
One I’ll never fail to see,
Wherever I must go.
It was where I fought beside you.
And then cried as you were lost.
Right there beside the memory.
Of what our fight has cost.
I know that’s where I saw you.
Audits where I see you still,
All double-time and courage,
As we charge another hill.
I saw you at the base camp
With your cup, and yes, a joke,
And the rasping of your laughter
Meant to wash away the smoke.
You were with me in the chow line
At the table saying grace
And I prayed like anything
“Just once,Lord, let me see that face.”
I saw you up the mountain,
And I’ll see you there again,
And in every place they send me,
Where the fire is, and then,
I’ll watch the plume rise upward,
As it lists from star to star
Outward past heaven’s wildlands,
To where you really are.
By Gordon Campbell, who had a firefighter on Ramona Helitack. I think in 2008.
I think taking surveys (signing petitions) from time to time are great, especially if you want to know what’s trending on netflix or the ice cream flavor of the month is.
Do we really think that our elected officials really care?
On a way more serious note, it’s time for the DOI/NPS to do away with the professional series once and for all. I know of one park that is on the verge of having zero leadership in place, all key positions are or nearly vacant and there is very little interest from qualified candidates to apply. Do away with the 0401 and just maybe we can fill a few more key vacancies.
Need to bring back FPMA’s to all parks with fire programs and make them GS-9’s, they do way more than just clerk related duties…..Anyone that is familiar with the programs knows what I am talking about….I believe there is maybe only a handful of FPMA’s left…..did away with them to save money…..Auighhhhhh!
And yes certainly better pay and tangible benefits would also help.
And lastly consider for a moment that a career in wildland fire is just not that appealing to a growing number of folks, when I was a kid we were raised out of doors so a job working out of doors was very appealing to us. I live in a rural area and yet seeing kids outside playing is very rare. I trail hike a lot and very rarely see kids hiking on the trails.
There is way more to this issue that what money can fix…….maybe it’s time for the feds to hire a top-notch marketing firm to sell just how great a career in wildfire could be……join the feds and see the country for free…….some great enticing slogan, that will do the trick…..
When we retire it’s hard to stop caring, there are really great dedicated folks that deserve better…….
Here’s where we were back in October before Bill took sick leave. Anyone care to pick up from here?
https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/10/08/the-staging-area-oct-8-2022/