Advice from Some Fire Scientists to the Chief on Managing the 2021 Fire Season

I’m going to post two letters from different groups of people about some aspects of restoring fire to landscapes in a climate-challenged world.

First the fire scientists’ letter.

We are a group of fire and forest scientists who study the range of interactions of fuels, fire, climate, and management. We are writing to express concern over your new directives to stop managing fire for resource benefit and requiring regional Planning Level 2 and Regional Forester approval for prescribed burning. Certainly, we recognize the underlying rationale to address short-term risks of escaped wildfires. Even if temporary, these directives will significantly limit options for resource managers in a time when increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration and fuel reduction is of critical importance. We request that you consider modifying the order, returning decision-making about managed fire and prescribed burning to the forest and district levels.

Now, I am not sure that I’ve ever met Chief Moore, so I am not a Current FS Chief apologist.  If you read the Chief’s letter, he’s pretty clear about his rationale (there aren’t enough resources and people are sick and tired), and that it’s for this unusual year.   But what’s really interesting to me about this paragraph in the scientists’ letter is the idea that decision-making should be returned to the forest and district levels.  It’s an interesting concept that fire scientists are weighing in as to what level is the best at decision-making. It seems like you would need some kind of evidence to make that assertion.  I agree that having to have the RO involved means that people are more serious about justifying their actions to other people.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, in my experience with NEPA.  In fact, some TSW folks (as well as some federal judges) think that district and forest folks can make bad NEPA decisions.  In my experience, most of the District and Forests make the right call most of the time. That’s why the decentralized system works.  But the risk of making a mistake here, even with a low overall probability of it happening, is pretty high.  If things went wrong, and I were making the decision, I’d want to make sure my boss was aligned in advance, and had my back, about something this potentially sensitive and dangerous. It’s a way of expanding the zone of potential blame.

And the Chief’s letter is only for this year… we can imagine from the national and state budget discussions that capacity will be ramping up in the future.  It’s taken us, what, a hundred years to get here? The scientists’ letter says “even if temporary”.. really it’s important to increase pace and scale this year of Pandemic? I just don’t get the urgency of needing to do it This Year.

Then there are many paragraphs in the letter that we would all agree with, about the general concepts of reintroducing fire via PB and WFU. Since the Chief has been in this business for a while (in Region 5, as the letter points out) I’m sure that this summary isn’t news to him.

The fire scientist authors go on to the need to convince “local leaders and residents”:

 The US Forest Service and other federal land management agencies should work with their state partners to help local leaders and residents understand the objectives and benefits of managed fire and to help them understand that fire and forest professionals are making science-based decisions about fire management. The number of examples of successfully managing natural ignitions far exceed the few cases with negative outcomes. The US Forest Service needs to advertise its successes and make the linkage to the 2009 decision that allows the flexibility to manage fires in a manner that is appropriate given the conditions.

This is a bit puzzling. Fire managers use their wisdom, experience, modeling and so on to manage WFU. Is the science-basis the general idea that fires should happen at some point? Or is each decision that a fire manager makes “science-based” somehow? And if community leaders are honestly worried about the “few cases with negative outcomes” happening to them, do they have a right to worry? This to me is not the territory of fire scientists.. to tell the FS how to change peoples’ minds about risks.  That’s the territory of social scientists.  I’m not one, but I think it’s about the challenge of building trust via starting small and not screwing up,  versus imposing your (albeit “scientific”) views on communities by citing.. the fact you decided it.  At least in part.

I know, at least via social media, and respect most of the signatories of this letter. I honestly don’t get why this cautious approach, for this year, bothers them enough to write a letter. And honestly it doesn’t really seem like a science issue at all; it’s a management issue- of what do do with the resources you have and don’t have, and how to reduce unnecessary stress on firefighters.

I was reminded of these Pinchot Principles.

* A public official is there to serve the public and not to run them.
* Public support of acts affecting public rights is absolutely required.
* It is more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you are hired for.
* Find out in advance what the public will stand for; if it is right and they won’t stand for it, postpone action and educate them.

vs. from the letter..

Our national forest system requires science-based leadership, even when political pressure is high.

Maybe we could discuss this with one or more of the signatories to understand their position better?

Here’s a Lessons Learned on escaped prescribed fires from 2005.

11 thoughts on “Advice from Some Fire Scientists to the Chief on Managing the 2021 Fire Season”

  1. And that’s why Line Officers make the Decisions! I’ve told many folks, that unless you are sitting in that chair, you have no idea the concerns around managed fire. Not being smug, but if you bleed green, and ride for the brand, (and other metaphors) you take those responsibilities very seriously!

    I had great mentors; some even kept me out of trouble in the managed fire realm. It is not a snap decision, and there are many other “opinions” to consider; chief being the public perception and acceptance of those decisions.

    And, when a fire goes south, the inevitable egg on the deciders face sticks for a spell (“a while” for you non-Southeners).

    Yes, we need managed fire for resource benefits! However, losing successional managed fires will get the whole program “whacked”, and rightly so. I found those Pinchot Principles hanging on a wall one day, and I used them for the rest of my career!

    Who knew old Gifford knew what he was talking about, oh so long ago…….

    Reply
  2. The Chief’s letter states that “the National Multi-Agency Coordination Group raised the national preparedness level (PL) to 5,” but the scientists’ letter mentions “Planning Level 2.” Confusing. Did they mean preparedness level 2?

    FYI, this is the definition of preparedness level 2:

    “At this stage, several geographic areas are experiencing high to extreme fire danger, though they are able to manage fire activity without requesting many wildland fire suppression resources from other areas. Few of the country’s IMTs are assigned to wildland fire incidents.”

    PL5:

    “This is the highest level of wildland fire activity. Several geographic areas are experiencing large, complex wildland fire incidents, which have the potential to exhaust national wildland firefighting resources. At least 80 percent of the country’s IMTs and wildland firefighting personnel are committed to wildland fire incidents. At this level, all fire-qualified federal employees become available for wildfire response.”

    See https://www.nifc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/National_Preparedness_Levels.pdf

    Reply
  3. “forest professionals are making science-based decisions”

    Isn’t this what has always gotten the Forest Service in trouble with its publics? Managed wildfires are even more problematic because there is no project-level decision-making process that would normally involve the public in meeting NEPA requirements. The only real public decision-point has to be the forest plan where it determines areas that are suitable for that kind of management under the right conditions. While that can’t be very specific it would at least initiate a public discussion.

    Reply
      • I’m not even against amendments. I would like to see the agency have a strategic plan to get all of its old forest plans revised, and fire amendments could help with those revisions.

        Reply
  4. Imagine a Bizarro reverse world, where anti-smoke activists band together, and hire lawyers to sue the Forest Service’s plans to use managed wildfire, as well as opposing prescribed burns ‘in their backyards’. Injunctions against burning projects could be serious business.

    There already are some organized people against prescribed burns and forest management. I’m pretty sure I saw one here, a year or two ago.

    Reply
    • That could be the same bizarro world where anti-vaccine activists sue to stop the government from protecting them and their communities.

      Reply
  5. Hi Sharon,

    Happy to share some of my own thoughts here: i.e., I am speaking for myself, as a scientist and signatory of the letter. I have a deep respect for the challenges and decisions that fire and forest managers have to make; I am not a manager or a policy maker, and I signed on the letter to “express concern” (as noted). I do strive to help link science with management, such that management approaches (not goals) can be informed by our best scientific understanding of how the world works.

    I have some thoughts and replies to the questions you pose in your post, below:

    S: “But what’s really interesting to me about this paragraph in the scientists’ letter is the idea that decision-making should be returned to the forest and district levels. It’s an interesting concept that fire scientists are weighing in as to what level is the best at decision-making. It seems like you would need some kind of evidence to make that assertion.”

    PH: Yes, a key concern to me with any fire-related policy is a “one-size-fits-all” approach. While this fire season is indeed extraordinary across much of the West…there are regions now, and likely into the fall, that could safely support rx fire and/or WFU. I think fuel moisture and fire danger metrics support / will support this. BUT…these decision are indeed assessed and made by local managers, and I support that decentralized system. As you note later: “In my experience, most of the District and Forests make the right call most of the time. That’s why the decentralized system works.” I agree.

    S: “And the Chief’s letter is only for this year… we can imagine from the national and state budget discussions that capacity will be ramping up in the future. It’s taken us, what, a hundred years to get here? The scientists’ letter says “even if temporary”.. really it’s important to increase pace and scale this year of Pandemic? I just don’t get the urgency of needing to do it This Year.”

    PH: As Leroy Westerling (another signatory) noted too on Twitter, I (we) have a general concern about moving to this “full suppression” mode on the basis of an unpreceded fire season…simply because we know we are going to increasingly exist in this zone of elevated fire danger and fire hazard (e.g., 2020 was extraordinary…only to be immediately equaled or surpassed by 2021). The urgency is to switch from a reactive, myopic approach to fire management to a more systems-based approach: one that recognizes that fire hazard, fire danger, and beneficial fire effects operate and interact at varying scales in space and time, and that one-size does not fit all. We *know* that suppressing fire now is concentrating risk and/or hazard into future years, future years that will be characterized by increasingly warm, dry conditions (i.e., high+ fire danger). But…to return to the first point: I’d like to see these decisions made by local/regional managers, who know their systems and circumstances the best, including the ecological and human dimensions.

    S: “The fire scientist authors go on to the need to convince “local leaders and residents”:
    ‘The US Forest Service and other federal land management agencies should work with their state partners to help local leaders and residents understand the objectives and benefits of managed fire and to help them understand that fire and forest professionals are making science-based decisions about fire management.’ ”

    PH: IF local managers want to utilize fire to (safely, obviously) achieve management goals, then let them, if they choose, do the work needed to implement the fourth of the Pinchot Principals noted in your piece.

    S: “Is the science-basis the general idea that fires should happen at some point? Or is each decision that a fire manager makes “science-based” somehow?

    PH: I would certainly say that fire and forest managers are indeed making decisions that are science-based, in ways too numerous to list.

    S: “And if community leaders are honestly worried about the “few cases with negative outcomes” happening to them, do they have a right to worry? This to me is not the territory of fire scientists.. to tell the FS how to change peoples’ minds about risks. That’s the territory of social scientists. ”

    PH: First, I see no reason why social scientists cannot be fire scientist. That, in fact, is a huge need in fire science in general. I have or know excellent collogues who are social scientists and fire scientists. We need more, as that’s where the key questions are to help us move forward and better live in our increasingly fiery world. But yes, community leaders and local managers by all means have “a right to worry”. I would simply like to see managers who would like to safely use fire to meet management goals be able to do so.

    S: ” And honestly it doesn’t really seem like a science issue at all; it’s a management issue- of what do do with the resources you have and don’t have, and how to reduce unnecessary stress on firefighters.”

    PH: I see science and management tightly linked. I do not think science can “tell managers what to do” or tell them what their goals are — that’s policy maker’s and manager’s decisions. Science can inform these decisions, and when policy or management approaches are inconsistent with our scientific understanding of the world, I think it’s important that scientists help point this out. If our rationale for moving to a full-suppression approach, across the entire West, is that we need to do this in a resource-limited, high fire-danger season, we’re not setting ourselves up for success or sustainability in upcoming years to decades (b/c these conditions are going to be increasingly common). I sincerely hope the directive does not have any long-term impacts on policy or fire use, and is just a blip in policy direction this year.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Jon Haber Cancel reply