Wildfire

FirefighterFire. One of the attributes that is said to have advanced mankind—and, over the last century or so, one of the acts of nature that has foiled us.

Until several large and deadly fires at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, fires on forest reserves, and then our national forests, were fought, if at all, by local folks and forest personnel. They fought with what ever they had and were usually battling flames with wet burlap bags and buckets of water. The Peshtigo fire in Wisconsin and fires in Michigan in 1871 burned more than 3.5 million acres and killed 1,500 people; in 1902, the Yacolt fire in southwestern Washington burned about 1 million acres and claimed 38 lives; the “Big Blowout” in Idaho and Montana in 1910 blazed through 3 million acres killing 85 people. These extensive fires triggered efforts and policies to fight fires at a different level.

  • The Weeks Act of 1911, showed the concern that protecting and restoring our national and state forests had elicited. Though the act was primarily to provide funds and structure to add lands in the eastern states to the national forest system, Section 2 addressed the need to fight fires.
  • The Clark-McNary Act of 1924 expanded the protections in the Weeks Act.
  • The policy in 1926 was to control fires before they reached 10 acres.
  • By 1935, the goal put in place after several deadly fires in the Pacific Northwest was to have fires greater than 10 acres controlled by the next morning: the “10:00 am policy.”
  • Public education to have citizens become more careful with fire was greatly emphasized with the Smokey the Bear campaign 1942.
  • After WWI, planes were used to help patrol for fires.
  • And the first smokejumpers followed in 1940.
  • Using those resources in the air began to include dumping water and/or chemicals in 1956.
  • And helicopters were incorporated into the fleet in the 1950s.

But the idea was still to suppress fires throughout the country. Even though as early as 1930, advocates and science recognized that fire was an integral part of an ecosystem–that letting wildfires burn and using prescribed fires would help habitat and reduce fire occurrence–policies continued to demand that fires be put out. Not until around 1960 did the application of those ideas start gaining traction. And after the fires in Yellowstone in 1988, policies began to shift; people began to accept the benefits of letting fires burn.

“Over the past 16 years, Federal wildland fire management policy has evolved in response to fire suppression management technology and continuing growth in the scientific understanding of wildland fire and its interaction with ecosystems and with the human environment. These changes, for the most part, began with issuance of the “Federal Wildland Fire Policy” (1995), and include the “National Fire Plan” (2000), “The Healthy Forest Initiative” (2002), “Healthy Forests Restoration Act” (2003), “10 Year Comprehensive Strategy” (2006), and the “FLAME Act (2009).” FSJP

“However, only recently, in the updated “A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy”(March 2011) was climate change specifically noted as a factor to be considered in fire management planning.” FSJP

A publication by the Fire Science Joint Program included studies looking at the last 1,000 years that identified fire frequencies in different habitats, in the eastern and western U.S. and looked at the factors that increased fire occurrence and severity. During the period when fires were being suppressed, fires were half as frequent as during the Medieval Warm Period. Yet, in the period 1987-2003, wildfires occurred 4 times more than they had in 1970-1986. Not only had the buildup of materials over decades contributed to increased fire, but also so has climate.

“We agree with the authors who have concluded that fuel management is most likely to be effective, and fire suppression more likely to have an influence on fire regimes in ecosystems (e.g. ponderosa pine) where fire occurrence is fuel-driven, which are typically characterized by relatively low-severity surface fire. More purely climate-driven fire regimes are typified by high or mixed severity fires which often burn with an intensity that does not make them amenable to control.” FSJP

Vast areas of burnable fuels, drought and high temperatures, are only a few of the problems with wildfires throughout the West. Not quite the onslaught of settlers a century and more ago, but the increased building of homes at public land edges—and without taking the precautions to protect their own property, the safety hazard of hobby-drones, the political push that all fires can be prevented by removing fuels, and finally, funding, are making huge impacts on fire fighting and prevention.

Many fires that could continue to burn are suppressed because of the proximity of private homes; drones have prevented air drops of water and chemical on raging fires; scientific studies continue to show that the critical component of fire ignition is the drought and high temperatures that the west has been experiencing and not the fuel load. And funding; for years each forest included within their budget an amount for fighting wildfires. More and more over the years, these dollars have been inadequate for the need and funds were “borrowed” from other sections, other budgets, and other forests. The greatest flaw in that solution is that it removes funds from programs that could help with fire prevention. The whole system fails.

“On August 20, the USDA released a report on the effects to other U.S. Forest Service (USFS) program areas from ‘fire borrowing’, wherein funds are reprogrammed from other programs mid-year, to cover wildfire fighting deficits.  Due to increasing drought, disease, pests, as well as increasing numbers of communities at the urban-wildlife intersection, the total wildfire area has tripled since 1980 and the number of fires has doubled in the same time period.”

“Climate change is exacerbating wildfire risk — the U.S. National Climate Assessment predicts that for every 1.8 degree F of surface temperature rise, the Western wildfire area may quadruple. Subsequently, suppression costs have grown from 16 percent of the Forest Service budget in 1995 to 42 percent today, robbing other Forest Service programs, many of which deal with hazardous fuels and forest health – which are important in reducing wildfire risk. USDA’s latest report details the widespread effects that fire borrowing practices have had on the Forest Service’s ability to manage federal lands across the United States.” Environmental and Energy Study Institute August 2014 

Bills have been introduced in Congress the last couple of years that would help alleviate this problem. Discussions include: Congress providing additional funds when a forest has spent 70% of it’s budget, placing wildfire costs within the Federal Emergency Management Act, and paying for all costs over 100% of the Forest Service Budget for wildfire in a given year.

But there are still those that insist on flying drones during an emergency and politicians claiming to know how to effectively manage forests.

 

Information was from:

Comments are closed.