For many of us, the decision-making processes involved in managed fire are not transparent. Especially since we are so used to lengthy NEPA processes prior to a decision. So I have been talking to some folks in R3. I am trying to understand this, so any corrections or knowledge of local difference would be appreciated. I’m not sure when this Mormon Fire Staff Ride was posted (it would be handy if folks thought to place dates) and maybe it’s outdated, but at least it’s a good starting place for looking at how decisions are made.
Basically, in some of 4FRI’s case, it sounds like the NEPA was already done via the 4FRI EIS for prescribed fire in various units. Something ignites, and then more decisions are made, about how to protect various resources, about the weather, about resource availability, about smoke and where it’s going, and these conditions have to be tracked in real time. In a way, it reminds me of condition-based management.
For NEPA folks here, it is in the Coconino LMP
The Flagstaff Ranger District managed a natural ignition for resource benefit for the first time in 2009. The Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan and Fire Management Plan permit this management approach outside of designated Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and congressional designated wilderness areas, where more restrictive standards apply. Over the succeeding years, the district became more and more experienced and active in using this tool, with increasing numbers and sizes of fires as conditions and locations allowed.
The 2015 Camillo Fire was the largest fire on the Coconino National Forest at that time (23,866 acres) and represented a significant increase in the size and complexity of fires managed for resource benefit.
***********
Some other thoughts from folks who reached out:
1.Trust is key. Local folks have a great deal of experience.
- Obviously a local workforce with a track record of success should not be messed with.
2. There isn’t a prescribed fire budget the way there is for MF because MF comes out of mega-suppression-bucks. If it’s a PF the Ranger pays for it, if it’s a MF the Chief pays for it.
3. MFs can order up more resources and have them on call. Engines, medics and so on. Perhaps being safer than PF, or able to be riskier with this backup? Maybe this is just a function of bucks, or there are other bureaucratic complexities- charging overtime?
4. There are many actions that take place during MFs as time passes that perhaps folks aren’t aware of. Units are decided on and “prepped”, archeological sites protected, duff removed from around pine trees and probably many other actions. In the example, there are units with separate decisions.
5. A key thing seems to be communications with local communities.
6. Some areas are too rough for PF.
Talking to these folks, it seems to me that at least in this part of Arizona, MF is a bit of a hybrid between a traditional PF and a pure suppression WF. Having a lightning ignition seems to generate mucho bucks and potentially less NEPA cost per acre for fuels that would otherwise need PF. Because the SW may have wetter summers due to the monsoon, does that give them an advantage in doing MF that others don’t have? What are others’ experiences with MF, the decision process, and where communication and trust works better and less well?
The Coc (Coconino) is set up pretty well for managed fire in and around Flagstaff because of the open grown, mature Ponderosa Pine, with grass understory. Not a lot of complexity, if done during Monsoon. Monsoon in Region 3 can be very predictive and actually quite intense. They usually begin around July 4 and run thru mid-September. Try managed fire from Mid-April thru the end of June and you’ll likely end up on the National Forests in Mississippi!
As for PF, on the Ouachita NF, we had over 40 million dollars for all things KV, including prescribed fire. It’s quite refreshing to see timber sale receipts (in KV) available for stand treatments, doing everything from RCW habitat , planting, precommercial thinning and burning 150,000+ acres/year. Helicopters are expensive but necessary to burn that much real estate.
My experience and awareness from working in five Regions tends to temper my outlook on using PF and MF; no use in forcing concepts that work well in some areas on those that don’t!
“The Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan and Fire Management Plan permit this management approach outside of designated Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and congressional designated wilderness areas, where more restrictive standards apply.” So these areas where different standards apply would be management areas in the forest plan. Since this describes a major difference in management emphasis, this seems like it should be standard fare in newer plans.
So I thought I’d look at the revised Coconino Plan from 2015. Their direction for WUI is part of forest-wide direction, for anywhere you find WUI, instead of in the Plan’s section on management areas defined by locations with mappable boundaries. Here’s where it is:
“The wildland-urban interface (WUI) includes residential areas and human developments having special significance at imminent risk from wildfire. Infrastructure that typically is considered part of the WUI includes residential areas, critical communications sites, water-related facilities, high voltage transmission lines, power lines, dams, observatories, church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, would result in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not only the sites themselves, but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites, regardless of the distance involved.”
Maybe that’s clear enough so the public knows where and how future management will occur. But why are they not using the statutory definition: “The term “wildland-urban interface” means— (A) an area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified in recommendations to the Secretary in a community wildfire protection plan; or (B) in the case of any area for which a community wildfire protection plan is not in effect— (i) an area extending ½-mile from the boundary of an at-risk community; (ii) an area within 1½ miles of the boundary of an at-risk community, including any land that— (I) has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community; (II) has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or (III) is in condition class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific environmental analysis; and (iii) an area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with the at-risk community, requires hazardous fuel reduction to provide safer evacuation from the at-risk community.” 16 USC § 6511(16) (HFRA 2003).