Above: wildfire potential for February, 2018, issued February 1, 2018.
(Originally published at 1:41 p.m. MDT February 1, 2018)
On February 1 the Predictive Services section at the National Interagency Fire Center issued their Wildland Fire Potential Outlook for February through May. The data represents the cumulative forecasts of the ten Geographic Area Predictive Services Units and the National Predictive Services Unit.
If the prediction is accurate, the wildfire potential in Southern California and the Southern Plains will remain above normal for the entire four-month period and will increase in the Southwest and Northwestern Great Plains in Montana and North Dakota. The Eastern U.S. should expect normal or below normal potential.
Below are:
The highlights of the NIFC narrative report for the next several months;
NIFC’s monthly graphical outlooks;
NOAA’s three-month temperature and precipitation forecasts; and
Drought Monitor.
“The significant wildland fire potential forecasts included in this outlook represent the cumulative forecasts of the ten Geographic Area Predictive Services units and the National Predictive Services unit.
“Wildfire activity is likely to begin to increase in February as would be seasonally expected. During the early portions of the year it is typical for significant fires to begin to occur across the southern tier of the U.S. Currently it appears the highest likelihood for above normal significant wildland fire potential will be in place across portion of the southern plains and Florida and Georgia. Across the southern plains the last years precipitation totals have brought about a somewhat robust fine fuel crop, which will provide an elevated baseline of fire activity. When this elevated fuel condition is exacerbated by a period of dry and windy conditions it will provide opportunities for any ignitions to become significant fires.
“These incidents will be difficult to predict, but extra attention should be paid to this area when dry and windy conditions are forecasted. In Florida and Georgia the significant drought that led to amplified fire activity in the fall across the south has not improved. Moisture deficits in these fuel types are significant because they not only make ignition significantly more likely but they also make fires much more difficult to fight. Both conditions make the need for fire suppression resources higher. Both of these significant areas of above normal potential are likely continue through March and probably return to normal in April or May.
“At the end of the Outlook period significant fire potential across portions of Alaska will being to increase. This is also generally seasonally anticipated, however, the potential for above normal significant fire activity in the south central portion of the state is likely. Drought conditions indicate that some unusual dryness will be in place in this area as fire season begins. This will likely lead to earlier than usual ignitions and the potential for worse than usual fires. In the shorter term Hawaii is likely to see some elevated activity thanks to some unusual dryness, but this condition is expected to be short lived.
“Additionally, fire activity is expected to be below normal across western portions of Tennessee and Kentucky throughout the Outlook period.”
How you tell a story influences what conclusions people draw from it (think Aesop’s Fables). Over the past decade, the overarching American wildfire narrative has become fairly focused on three dynamics: fuels buildup due to suppression, climate change, and the expanding wildland-urban interface (WUI). But what are these narratives based on?
There is a fair bit of research and debate as to when and where fuel overloading and climate change will have the most influence, in fact too much to be easily citable here. However, according to research for a paper that I’m developing with Matt Thompson of the Rocky Mountain Research Station and Courtney Schultz of Colorado State University, few data support the WUI story. Specifically, only limited data support the arguments for why and how the WUI is contributing to the wildfire problem.
For instance, a commonly cited concern is that 50–95 percent of wildfire suppression costs can be attributed to the protection of private property in the WUI. However, when our team followed the citations for this statement, we found that they all led back to data from a single 2006 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report (PDF, 1.57 MB). Further, the report reached that particular conclusion using data that most social scientists would find problematic at best. Stay tuned for my team’s paper to learn more about that report’s limitations.* We have found a few studies that examine the breakdown of suppression costs in a more rigorous manner, using meaningful metrics (e.g., the number of homes near the fire perimeter and the percent of private land). But, while they do find a positive association between homes being located in the WUI and suppression costs, none demonstrate causality or conclude that the costs of protecting private property come close to the low end of OIG’s estimates. Nor can we find any study that tracks changes in the WUI with changes in suppression costs over time, even though a key perceived “problem” with the WUI is that its expansion will automatically increase wildfire suppression costs.
Similarly, although it is often stated that wildfire-related housing loss is increasing, it is hard to find any data that support or deny this claim, as wildfire-related housing loss hasn’t been tracked consistently until fairly recently. Further, even the existing data are problematic. For instance, the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) claims that 2,638 homes were lost nationally in 2015 (see page 9 of this NICC report, PDF, 830 KB); while CAL FIRE reports that 3,217 homes were destroyed in California alone that same year (see page 10 of this CAL FIRE report, PDF, 1.28 MB). Further, while it is too short of a time span to draw any solid conclusions, it is worth noting that both datasets suggest that higher losses are periodic and due to specific wildfire events. For example, the graph below, which I developed using NICC annual summary reports, illustrates that when excluding the state that lost the most residences in a given year — say Tennessee in 2016, the year of the Gatlinburg fires — home loss (shown in green) is relatively flat.
Inaccurate Stories Are Unlikely to Lead to Effective Solutions
Accepting WUI narratives that lack sufficient supporting data can lead to developing solutions that are less likely to have the desired impact, because they may be targeting the wrong problem. Further, these proposed solutions may have unintended consequences because they don’t take existing data, or lack thereof, or the larger context into account. For instance, a common recommendation based on the WUI narrative is to limit development in fire-prone areas. However, while we do have fairly robust science concerning factors that make an individual home more fire resistant, we don’t have much information on what type of larger scale development is associated with improved wildfire outcomes. There are only a few relevant studies, and they offer conflicting “solutions.” For example, some studies suggest clustered housing would help with decreasing suppression costs, but others suggest clustered housing would lead to more losses.
Another common recommendation based on the WUI narrative is to form a national fire-insurance program similar to the National Flood Insurance Program, which appears to be seen as a means of ensuring that WUI residents bear the cost of living there. This recommendation ignores the significant evidence concluding that the National Flood Insurance Program has done little to shift the cost burden from federal taxpayers (and in fact has probably increased it) or to limit housing development in flood-prone areas. This argument also seems to assume that if individuals can’t obtain or afford insurance, then they will choose to not live in the WUI. However, there is no evidence that this is the case. It’s just as likely that individuals will continue to live there for a variety of reasons (e.g., amenities, affordability in other regards) and just take their chances, essentially making those with fewer resources even more vulnerable.
Further, insurance levers can raise an equity consideration: if insurance did have the desired effect, it is likely that only the wealthy would be able to live in the WUI since only they could afford to pay higher insurance premiums or to self-insure. It is worth asking whether that is an acceptable tradeoff.
Shifting Our Language
Through this process, I have begun to question whether the WUI is still a useful construct. While it may have been useful at one point to draw attention to the increasing intermingling of housing and natural vegetation, it now seems to create an artificial distinction that may be misleading. I doubt many of those who lost their homes in the recent California wildfires, particularly in Santa Rosa, thought of themselves as living in the WUI. Further, a preliminary analysis by the University of Wisconsin shows that regarding the Tubbs Fire, many of the losses were not technically in the WUI. Instead, the largest portions of homes lost were in areas considered either too dense or not dense enough to be classified as the WUI. Forest Schafer’s recent blog post about how Lake Tahoe partners are rethinking their WUI is another example of the limitations of drawing artificial lines when assessing wildfire risk.
And then there is the question of how limiting development in the WUI would work. Beyond equity issues and the fact that we don’t have strong evidence regarding what “better” land-use planning for wildfire looks like, I always wonder, “So, where are people supposed to live then?” As one recent newspaper headline stated: “All Californians Live in Fire Country Now.” Perhaps just thinking about how we can best live in fire-prone landscapes may be a more useful way to frame the discussion, rather than creating artificial distinctions based on housing density and natural vegetation.
*This blog describes initial findings from a paper that Courtney, Matt and I are working on. The articles referenced in this blog post will be identified in that paper, which will be available on Treesearch once it is published.
Photo credit: Sarah McCaffrey
Sarah McCaffrey, Ph.D., is a research forester for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Her research focuses on the social aspects of fire management. This work has included projects examining wildfire risk perception, social acceptability of prescribed fire and thinning, characteristics of effective communication programs, and incentives for the creation and maintenance of defensible space. She has also initiated work examining social issues that occur during and after wildfires, including evacuation-decision making, agency-community interactions during fires, public perception of wildfire management overall, views on the Cohesive Strategy, and perceptions about what it means to be a fire adapted community. She received her Ph.D. in Wildland Resource Science in 2002 from the University of California at Berkeley.
A U.S. Forest Service firefighter, Dave Dahlberg, was introduced and honored by President Trump at the January 30 State of the Union Address. Mr. Dahlberg helped rescue 62 children and staff members whose camp had been encircled by the Whittier Fire northwest of Santa Barbara, California.
Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke has announced the selection of Jeff Rupert to serve as Director of the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire (OWF). Mr. Rupert has been serving as the Acting Director since October 2017.
He has been with the Department of the Interior for over twenty years, beginning as a refuge biologist at the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, along the U.S/Mexico border.
Most recently, Mr. Rupert served as the Chief of the Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), where he led a diverse program of work, which included FWS Fire Management located at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, and the Natural Resource Program Center in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Dave Dahlberg helped rescue 62 children and staff members whose camp had been encircled by the Whittier Fire northwest of Santa Barbara, California.
David Dahlberg, a Fire Prevention Technician on the Los Padres National Forest, is presented an award by Ray Sweet, left, board president for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul Los Angeles, and Circle V Ranch Camp director Ray Lopez. October 15, 2016. Photo courtesy of USFS.
A U.S. Forest Service employee is being honored by attending the President’s State of the Union Address scheduled for 9 p.m. ET Tuesday.
Dave Dahlberg, a Fire Prevention Technician on the Los Padres National Forest working out of Pine Canyon Fire Station, helped rescue 62 children and staff members at the Circle V Ranch Camp during the Whittier Fire July 8, 2017.
This is a big deal. Congratulations to FPT Dahlberg!
Mr. Dahlberg will be one of 12 special guests of President Trump and will be seated with First Lady Melania Trump.
David Dahlberg meets Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue. Dept. of Ag. photo.
As the flames bore down on the camp there was fire on both sides of the access road but he was able to drive through the smoke and heat to the camp where he corralled the scores of children and staff members, keeping them safe. Later a convoy of vehicles took the personnel out of the area.
Mr. Dahlberg provides more details in the video below:
…At the end of the road, 58 campers ages seven through 16 and 24 adult staff members were trapped in the camp.
The deputies turned around but U.S. Forest Service Patrolman Dave Dahlberg, who was initially behind them, was able to pass and make it through.
“I was able to make access into the camp through all the smoke and flames and all the debris on the road. It was tough at some points,” said Dahlberg, who was familiar with Circle V Ranch from prior training based on similar circumstances.
Dahlberg and the campers sheltered in place at the dining hall. Flames were about 600 feet away.
“I assured them that we were in a safe place and that we would all get out safely. It seemed like minutes but it probably was closer to two hours when I first saw county Dozer 1,” he continued.
Dozer operator Mark Linane started cutting fire line around the camp. Overhead, helicopters and airtankers made drops where the flames were seen moving toward the camp.
Dahlberg doused the dining hall with water as flames approached. Another hour went by before search and rescue vehicles arrived at the camp.
So proud of @USDA@forestservice firefighter David Dahlberg, whose heroics during a wildfire in July saved the lives of 62 children and staff at a camp near Santa Barbara, CA. Also proud that @POTUS has invited him to watch #SOTU tonight seated with @FLOTUS. pic.twitter.com/DldThHm7vF
The Whittier Fire burned over 18,000 acres northwest of Santa Barbara. The Circle V Ranch Camp is south of Cachuma Lake and south of San Marcos Pass Road. On the map below it is north of the “W” in “Whittier Fire”.
Map of the Whittier Fire, current at 9:30 p.m. PDT July 16, 2017. Click to enlarge.Whittier Fire. Undated photo posted to Inciweb July 16, 2017.
In Western Arizona and Southern California plants are greening up weeks earlier than usual
Spring has started to arrive in the southwest and southeast states. In southern Florida, spring is right on time compared to a long-term average (1981-2010), but parts of Texas, Louisiana, and northern Florida are one week late. In southern California and southwestern Arizona, spring is arriving 1-2 weeks early.
The timing of leaf-out, migration, flowering and other seasonal phenomena in many species is closely tied to local weather conditions and broad climatic patterns.
An early greenup, depending on weather later in the season, could mean herbaceous plants will become dormant and cure out earlier, which may result in a wildfire season in the lower elevations that begins sooner than average.
