We’ve had some good discussion recently (which searches couldn’t find) of how to count acres burned by wildfires towards burning targets, and how to comply with project planning requirements (i.e. NEPA and ESA) for such actions. An implication I got was that a national forest could count a lot of acres if it just let a wildfire burn, and there wouldn’t be any process requirements.
Well, this sounds like the opposite of that, and like what I think should be the proper way of doing this – a wildfire started in an area that had been “prepped” for a prescribed burn. Assuming that “prepped” includes the usual public participation and effects analysis.
Fire managers plan to expand the footprint of a 10-acre lightning-caused wildfire burning northeast of Dolores on the Haycamp Mesa next week, and could burn upward of 4,500 acres.
Last month, the Dolores Ranger District announced plans to burn 4,577 acres across Haycamp Mesa Units 5, 6 and 9. Fire managers plan to use existing roads as fire lines within which they would contain the blaze.
The Spruce Creek Fire started Tuesday afternoon along the northern perimeter of Unit 5.
“It’s all prepped and ready to go, conditions are ideal,” said Pat Seekins, prescribed fire and fuels program manager for the San Juan National Forest. “It’s low-intensity surface fire, it’s doing exactly what we need it to do.”
If the weather continues to cooperate, fire managers hope to burn between 4,000 and 5,000 acres. Seekins said crews have prepared around 5,600 acres to burn.
“With prescribed fire this spring, we’ve accomplished just shy of 4,000 acres, which is good – we’ve had a good spring,” Seekins said. “But we’re taking this opportunity to expand those acres.”
It’s not clear exactly how active they would be to “expand” those acres. Interestingly,
Last year, fire managers used three natural blazes that began inside units already prepped for treatment to return fire to the landscape in the San Juan National Forest. With the help of firefighters, those three wildfires ultimately treated 4,000 acres of forest.
Is the San Juan just lucky, or well-prepared, or does this happen a lot?
Generating hypotheses here (1) the SJ has had success with prescribed fire with public support, so may well have many more acres prepped than the average Forest. (2) due to local weather factors perhaps lightning fires occur there more frequently when conditions are right for managed fire (early in the season, before it gets too hot and dry) than other areas.
In some possibly related litigation news, the Supreme Court has declined to review a 10th Circuit opinion (Knezovich case) that denied claims from parties injured by the Roosevelt fire in Wyoming in 2018 because they failed to show how the government acted outside its discretionary authority in not suppressing the fire.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/12/29/wyomingites-who-lost-homes-when-feds-let-roosevelt-fire-burn-watch-supreme-court/
Another case (Accurso case) involving the same fire was awaiting this Supreme Court action, and plaintiffs had stated that they would withdraw their case if the Supreme Court allowed the 10th Circuit decision in Knezovich to stand. The Accurso case also brought up the questions of NEPA, ESA and NFMA compliance with the Forest Service actions, as described here.
https://forestpolicypub.com/2023/09/27/public-lands-litigation-update-through-september-25-2023/
I was looking forward to seeing what might happen with those issues.
Thanks, Jon. I hope you keep up with this and let us know.
Well, if the unplanned wildfire just happened to start with the boundary of the prescription, that is fortuitous. Planning is a solid strategy. Hope and luck are not good strategies. “Monitoring” an unplanned wildfire scares me. So does “Indirect Containment.” We have seen the horrible impacts of this tactic all too often [i.e., the Tamarack Fire is a “poster” example].
My position remains very consistent. That is, “put out all unplanned wildfires immediately with a strong Initial Attack. I do understand safety concerns. Our forestlands, especially in the west, are in no condition to be receptive for “managed” or “beneficial” fire. Let’s talk about it in a decade when forest maintenance has been a cohesive priority.
Check out “A Call to Action” [rev. 17.7] that has been developed by 78 contributors, and counting, for lots of discussion on this topic.
Very respectfully,
I’m in full agreement with Michael. My crews did about 18,000 acres of prescribed fires in a 10-year period and never had even one acre of “slop-over” from these operations. The documented failures of “let it burn” fires and the phony “safety” issues that let them develop should be compared to the great work that local folks and smokejumpers used to do when our public forests were being actively managed. More jobs, more wildlife, safer forests and communities, and better schools and parks. I recommend Michael’s compilation and also Jim Petersen’s fine book: “First, Put Out the Fire!”
“Put out all unplanned wildfires immediately with a strong Initial Attack.” Personally, I don’t believe a one size fits all approach in an area as vast and diverse as the US West is appropriate. I live just a few miles on the other side of the Divide from the San Juan NF. My property borders the Rio Grande NF. The RGNF has successfully conducted managed fires for well over 10 years now. I retired from the RGNF 5 years ago. The Forest goes through a checklist for every natural start fire to determine if it should be suppressed or managed for resource benefit. Many fires are suppressed right away due to the first step in the check list – location. The RGNF has delineated where and where not managed fires may be appropriate. Sharon recently posted, “Discussion: Featuring 2023 San Juan National Forest fire response”. Here is a link to a 21 minute video they put out; I think it is worth a look. https://usda-fs.wistia.com/medias/0g0ertfeo6
The only gripe I have with the process is that managed fires can create smoke issues for lengthy periods of time. Prescribed fires don’t last as long and are conducted only on days when the State approves them based on smoke dispersal projections. That said, I’ll take a well managed fire for resource benefit over a large wind-driven wildfire any day. At the very least, managed fires tend to be safer for the firefighters.
Here’s another example of … maybe the opposite approach of unplanned, opportunistic, NEPA-free “restoration?”
https://nmfireinfo.com/2024/05/27/indios-fire-update-may-27-2024/
“Incident objectives include protecting values at risk and meeting Santa Fe National Forest Plan objectives by reintroducing fire into a fire dependent ecosystem. Expected benefits include reduction of hazardous fuels, encouraging native growth, and improving range and watershed conditions, species diversity, and wildlife habitat.”
But I don’t find anything in Inciweb that mentions or links to the project analysis (w/NEPA) that would support this.