The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

This is from an interview with a firefighter on the Shawnee National Forest.

So now, assuming that One Fire Agency is not happening, what are the problems that it was intended to solve and how could they be fixed? I’m not sure that GAO is the right organization to figure that out. If I were Congress, I’d ask the FS and BLM to establish an interagency team with reps from the various industries, wildland firefighters, folks formerly known as militia, States, etc. to get comments from everyone on what the problems are. I’ve heard “Sheehy wants more contracts for his former company” and “there are contracting problems of all kinds.” I’ve also heard (not surprisingly) that firefighters want more pay and better food. I’ve heard “there used to be Managed Fire teams who were experts at MF, maybe we should go back to that.” In the interests of fostering that dialogue, I am encouraging knowledgeable folks to either comment or draft posts with your ideas for improvement so we can hear different voices, particularly those of  people currently working in wildfire.

The first invited post on “what’s broke and other ways to fix besides One Fire Agency” is from Riva Duncan of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.

Our briefing paper lines out a lot of what we think the issues are:

Many, many thanks to Marc Heller of E&E News for wading through the tedious verbiage (but necessary, I get it) in the House Approps report..

There seems to be a notable lack of enthusiasm by House Approps. They want GAO to take a look before anyone leaps, and the report gives specific concerns to be addressed. These concerns seem pretty much in line with what folks I know have raised. The below is from page 12 of this document. I’m sure there are other interesting things in there if anyone has read it or wants to.

Here’s the point of the report.

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026.

Reorganization Proposals—Wildland Fire Management.—The Committee appreciates the Administration’s goal of reducing waste and improving efficiency across Federal agencies. The Committee supports the Administration’s efforts to improve forest health, enhance wildfire resilience, and strengthen the capacity of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) to manage land and fight wildfires. The Committee acknowledges the importance of investing in sustainable land management practices, particularly in increasing timber production, reducing hazardous fuels, and ensuring a robust and stable Federal firefighting workforce.

While the Committee is supportive of these objectives, changes in budgetary and management structure spark concerns about impacted agencies’ abilities to consistently meet critical performance benchmarks. Specifically, the Committee notes ongoing challenges
in achieving timber volume targets, meeting hazardous fuels reduction goals, and maintaining use of an adequately staffed and red
card-certified workforce necessary for wildfire response. The Committee is also concerned about how restructuring would influence
the fundamental purpose of the Forest Service, shifting from a commodity focus to conservation.

To ensure these goals are met and that funding is utilized most effectively, prior to the transfer of any resources or authorities, the
Committee directs the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study regarding the proposed creation of a consolidated Fire Service within DOI that assesses the impacts on reaching proposed timber targets, continued cohesion between wildland fire management and the hazardous fuels reduction program, continued use of the available red card-certified workforce, and how this new consolidated Service differs from the role the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) already plays to coordinate fire response. Additionally, the study should evaluate the extent to which states, localities, and Tribes were consulted regarding plans for the creation of this new Fire Service and consider what impact this transfer may have on these critical stakeholders.

Not later than 180 days following the enactment of this Act, the Committee directs GAO to report its findings to the Committee, including detailed recommendations for improving performance and addressing any identified deficiencies with the proposal. The Committee further directs DOI and the Forest Service to provide a comprehensive response to GAO’s findings and consider these findings when evaluating future actions and resources related to wildland fire management.

The Committee emphasizes that continued support for this initiative is contingent upon demonstrable progress toward meeting
these performance benchmarks, with clear, measurable outcomes

Thanks to all who participated in the previous managed fire discussions! If you haven’t read all the comments (some came in over the weekend) please take a look.

Folks are still talking about One Fire Agency even though House Appropriations seems to have a distaste for it.  It’s a good sign but perhaps not the end of the road for people who don’t want it. We’ll keep you posted.

I’d like to try to draw out some potential zones of agreement, and some areas that haven’t been brought up yet.

1. Some people say “we will never get to where “we need to be” without MF.” I’m not so sure of that framing (have we really discussed “where we need to be”? Perhaps no combo of PF MF and MT will ever get us there, since we haven’t clarified where “there” is (and it’s possible that we don’t all agree).

I would go with “we need to keep all the tools in the toolkit.” Pragmatically, I’m not sure that it makes any difference.  But that makes many of us “keep and improve” rather than “stop.”  We actually don’t know how many folks out there (nor just here on TSW) are “stop entirely.”  Are most of us here mostly variants of “keep and improve?” Is this like climate change, where most of the oxygen in the room is taken up by “believers” and “unbelievers” and there’s no space left for “let’s talk about what to do about it?” and “how can we make this work better for everyone?”.

2. Folks mentioned MF in the GCNP plan; I know the GMUG has a fire use plan amendment; I heard that some newer plans (Inyo?) incorporated fire use.  The Santa Fe also has based on the news story about the Laguna Fire. Shouldn’t there be a more or less consistent approach?

3. Even without a new fire agency, some members of the public are going to paint all agencies with the same brush when things go wrong.  Do the FS, BLM, USFWS, NPS, DOD have consistent approaches to planning for MF? Should they? Given their different missions, conceivably they could still do some kind of NEPA, and involve the public to lay some groundwork for the inevitable lightning strike.

4.  There is talk of “blaming doesn’t help”. Of course, the wildfire organization is famous for being a learning organization.   Are there ways we can broaden this to becoming more of a “learning society”?  How do we balance accountability, learning, and keeping good people?

5. Some would argue that when litigation and money enter the discussion, learning becomes more difficult or goes out the window.  I hope TSW folks in the legal world know of some ways to surmount this.

6. Same thing with partisan politics. Historic winds were caused by climate change..better decisions would have been made except the good decision-makers took early outs. Of course, if climate change causes historic winds, then maybe folks should be more careful with MF…

It’s interesting that both 5 and 6 (try to) take everyone’s eye off the ball of of “improving practices.” And the voices of practitioners- the only people who can fix it- are not heard except in service to various positions or narratives.

7. It seems to me that many of the escapes happen when the weather changes unexpectedly.  Conceivably, that is one scenario that the team is considering.  What if strong winds come up? From what direction are they likely to come up? Technology to detect and predict changes (as well as putting them out) will only get better over time.  Maybe more resources need to be stationed and ready to go to- maybe held to support MFs? Certainly part of that is not having MF’s when other resources are drained, but maybe there are other ways of organizing resources as backup.

8.  Perhaps the fact that the lodge has gotten so much attention has distracted us from other people, livestock and wildlife that can be hurt by uncontrolled wildfires.   Structural protection only does so much.  Only so many critters can get out of the way fast enough.

9.  Second order effects of MF escapes (or possibly monitoring).  If resources are tied up (either in monitoring or suppressing escapes) then they aren’t available for “real” wildfires, which could lead to more damage on those acres.

10. Costs and benefits.  We hear that MF is cheaper than PF and MT, and no doubt it is, in some cases.    Then there’s the environment. There’s more smoke potentially (for months) and possibly the use of more fire retardant, and more carbon released? I’m not sure we really know (and I’m not sure costs are considered in deciding 5K acre box vs. 15K acre box). See the SNF list of considerations below.

Now some here at TSW say “escapes happen but they’re necessary.”  So if we were going to follow that line of thinking, we would analyze alternative ways of  (doing what exactly, restoring all acres to historic conditions or managing for resource and community protection?) including MT PF, MT plus PF, MF and all possible combinations, I guess, and select a percentage for escapes and calculate the impacts.

And if that seems unduly esoteric,  welcome to what I call “NEPA for might could” as in forest planning and Roadless, which is  not analyzing actual projects, but analyzing what projects might happen under various scenarios.

The problem with these kinds of analyses is that people and organizations usually have predilections, and depending on what they consider and what values they assume.. they tend to get answers favoring their predilection.  So these analyses don’t really solve any problems. Plus they can get held up in court making the agency reanalyze, when we all know that they are made-up numbers in “NEPA for might-could.” If the problem is escapes, which I think it is, the answer is to reduce the risk of escapes and all this other stuff is more or less a distraction.

*****************

Two more stories of interest:

Laguna Fire and Burned Cattle

These appear to be from intentionally set backburns and according to the Santa Fe, the plan to MF 13K acres was in their forest plan and the result of collaboration.  According to the SF, they did communicate with permittees about their plans.

Here’s their process:

As required by our Santa Fe National Forest Land Management Plan, when a natural ignition occurs, specifically, a wildfire caused by lightning, our SFNF team analyzes various fire management strategies. The decision-making process involves assessing risks to people and property, current weather conditions and forecasts, existing drought conditions, firefighter health and safety, and the methods available for safely engaging with and fighting the fire. We also consider the potential smoke impacts on communities and the duration of those effects, as well as impacts on grazing allotments, wildlife habitats and species, timber, and watersheds. After collaborating with federal, state, and local leaders, as well as Land Grants, Tribes, permittees, and community members, the SFNF identified a planned perimeter of 13,000 acres around the lightning-caused wildfire. Our primary objectives were to prioritize the safety of firefighters and the public, while also protecting water quality in watersheds, water systems, and springs by minimizing fire intensity and the potential for severe fire effects.

This is interesting because that’s a lot of collaborating, and other folks are saying that there isn’t enough time after an ignition to do that kind of collaboration.  But the whole story is interesting.

8. Some Retired Fire Folks on Dragon Bravo:

“This ongoing fire has displaced over 250 NPS employees and an additional 230 private concessions staff from their homes and continues to pose a devastating ecological and economic burden on the State of Arizona,” Gosar wrote to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “Who made the decision to treat the Dragon Bravo Wildfire as a controlled burn versus deploying the assets to immediately extinguish it?”

A retired U.S. Forest Service official familiar with the terrain of the North Rim tells 12News an investigation should determine who made those decisions.

“I’m disturbed why the park would make a management decision to allow it to burn. Normally you wouldn’t let a fire burn in late June and early July in a region with a history of fires escaping,” said Jim Page, who managed wildfires as an officer in other forests during his career. “You also have to consider how many fires were burning in the western United States and how many air tankers were committed elsewhere at the time.”

The National Park Service said human life and safety were the priority, and no lives were lost.

I’ve always thought that Managed Fire was a particularly interesting issue. We have folks like Sara Hyden and Frank Carroll raising questions, who otherwise might not agree on much about forest management. In June, I posted a five part series on Exploring Views on Managed Fire. If you search on Managed Fire in the search box you can find those and more.

I’ve noticed a pattern with some issues.. people have concerns and they are seemingly ignored, or at least not directly engaged with in any public form. People finally get together, involve those of a political persuasion, and try to do something, and it shows up as “too much” and “you shouldn’t fix it that way.” Or it can become partisanized because one party seems more sympathetic than the other. The Fire Service may be another example of that pattern.  Fortunately, Managed Fire has not been partisanized as far as I can tell… yet.  I hope we continue to resist any such efforts to partisanize.  Sadly, it has already started in letters like this..in the AZ central.. “one wonders?”:

When asked why this happened, perhaps it’s too early to know. But one wonders if the massive workforce cuts under the current federal administration in both the National Park Service the United States Forest Service, leaving many specific and essential jobs vacant, played a destructive role in the senseless burning of this national treasure.

And so it goes.. still here we are.

The Hotshot Wakeup discussed the Dragon Bravo fire, which was under a confine/contain strategy.

These confine/contain fire strategies are defined as:

“Restricting the spread of a wildfire to a defined area, using a combination of natural and constructed barriers that will stop the spread of the fire under the prevailing and forecasted weather conditions until the fire is out. This includes some actions (for example, line construction or bucket drops) to suppress portions of the fire perimeter.”

This is also different than a full suppression fire:

“A strategy to ‘put the fire out’ as efficiently and effectively as possible, at the minimum possible acreage, while providing for firefighter and public safety. Synonymous with Full Perimeter Containment and Control. (209 User’s Guide, NWCG)

As is so common with Managed Fire Exceedances/Blowouts/Problems, THW says:

However, I think it’s fair to say that these strategies were working up until they didn’t. Fire activity on the Dragon Bravo Fire back on July 9th is what I would consider fairly mellow.

Also there was another fire in an earlier year (the Dragon Fire 2022) where the same strategies worked.

THW asked these question:

So I ask this final question… It’s not who’s to blame; the question is, does the national wildfire response strategy need to shift to a more aggressive initial attack response across the board? National Parks, Forests, and other lands?

Is that the route to go IF we drastically increase prescribed fire and fuels management projects? Is it fine the way it is, and we just have to convince the public that this happens once in a while?

The comments to THW’s post are interesting, hope you can read them without a subscription.

If not, questions were raised about whether the lodge was adequately prepped.

Also according to Pecos Ranger:

The Dragon Bravo Fire was being managed by a T3 IMT until it wasn’t on July 13th. A T3 IMT with minimum staffing does not have an assigned MET, nor an FBA. So, this hard question needs to be asked.

And Derrick Holdstock suggested that folks upscale the management of managed fires:

There is a 3rd strategy. Throw the world at managing it. If you are managing a fire for resource benefit during fire season, then why not have a large organization creating the Altetnate, Contingency, and Emergency lines if the Primary line fails? I can tell you that I know of zero R3 VIPR contractors who were committed to a fire at the time this or the other fire blew out. Most are continuing to sit. I know VIPR resources are not the tip of the spear in some cases, but many are solid and all would be ecstatic to have an order to brush out a contingency line on a managed fire, instead of sitting around waiting to go out of business or to put a bullet in their head (whichever comes first).

I think each Managed Fire Escape (MFE) of course deserves its own lessons learned and review.  At the same time, as THW and others have said, we run the risk of losing public support if all they see is “one MFE at a time.” Which raises the question “what should happen with the overall USG policy on MF?” “By what kinds of discussion, by whom, should the broader policy implications be considered?” “How does that tie in to “lessons learned” from each MF that was not a success (and who decides what makes it a success?)”.

And I’m not thrilled with getting Congress to look at it (sorry, staff folks) because .. I don’t think that they’re good at this kind of thing. IMHO the desire to score political points and give favors to preferred groups doesn’t always make for the best design and improvement of processes.

To my way of thinking the FS model for their prescribed fire review (following Hermit’s Peak Calf Canyon PFEs) is a better example.  This kind of review for MFE, though, would have to be multi-agency, look at the entire USG MF program, and involve some representatives of affected communities as well as practitioners.  It would look at MFEs and also MF successes and see if there is a pattern.  Agencies and units have different approaches, are all equally successful? What seems to make the difference? What are the different approaches at involving communities in decisions? What do MF projects need more of to be successful? Are the agency incentives lined up in the same direction as what the communities want?  Should units have consistent approaches to any NEPA pre-planning efforts to outline MF sideboards?  What overlap, if any, is there between conditions for MFEs and Prescribed Fire Escapes (a guess would be predicting future weather)?

And some folks seem to be against MF in general, but MF can be many different things in different places, which perhaps need to be parsed out. For one thing, it would be handy to know how many MFEs there are each year, where, when, impacts and link to the lessons learned.

We have folks like the Coconino who seem to have almost a prescribed fire/managed fire hybrid and seem to be successful. Then we have the “lightning strike in area that “needs it” and is far from infrastructure, and even though it’s summer, we think we can watch it until winter” kind of MF. Which don’t seem to be the same thing at all. Yet if we talk about MF, probably everyone has their own scenario in their head.

As a non-expert, I would have to guess that some of the MFs escaping are due to their having started pre-season and perhaps it not being clear exactly if the season (according to the Chief’s letter of intent) started.  For example, the Laguna Fire on the Santa Fe as of 6/30:

The wildfire was first reported Wednesday June 25, 2025. Fire managers will start firing operations as early as this week with the aim of restoring the ecological process of fire across approximately 13,000 acres of forest land. A closure order for the area surrounding the Laguna Wildfire is expected to be issued for the safety of the public and firefighters.

It’s interesting that the words used were “restoring the ecological process of fire” and not necessarily “reducing fuels strategically to so that key resources and infrastructure might be more able to be protected from wildfire.” Which goes back to “how clear do units need to be in advance about goals and sideboards?” and “is there a role for the public and environmental analysis at some point?”

So back to… how would you organize some kind of programmatic inter-agency review of MF? Who would be involved? What questions would you ask? What data would you collect?