A recent article in the Daily Montanan State wildfire briefing indicates fire season ‘could be significant’ that promotes misguided information about wildfire.
It starts with Montana Governor Greg Gianforte’s claim that the state firefighters have been able to keep “95% of wildfire starts to 10 acres or fewer since 2021.”
What is missing from such a claim is that 99% of all wildfire starts tend to burn 10 acres or fewer, even if you do nothing. Most fire ignitions self-extinguish or are easily suppressed if you have low to moderate fire weather.
The state and federal governments continue to promote the concept that fuels control large blazes. However, it is the climate that promotes large blazes.
If you have extreme fire weather, it is virtually impossible to stop a blaze. The only significant fires are those burning under such climate/weather conditions. These conditions include drought, high temperatures, low humidity, and, most importantly, high winds. Fires created under extreme fire weather conditions make up less than 1% of all wildfires but account for most acreage burned annually.
For instance, the 1910 Big Burn that charred more than 3.5 million acres of western Montana and northern Idaho occurred over two days due to high winds and extreme drought.
The multi-year moisture deficits and predicted warm, dry summer will likely create the ideal conditions for major wildfires.
The problem for Montana is Wildfire Risk.org, which suggests that more than half of Montana’s homes are at high risk of ignition from wildfire. The best way to reduce fire risk is by home hardening and construction with non-flammable materials.
Despite research that shows that home hardening in the home ignition zone is the most effective and efficient means of reducing wildfire risk, government agencies continue to promote fuel reductions as their solution. The Forest Service’s “Confronting the Wildfire Crisis” program is focused on reducing fuels in forests rather than directly protecting communities.
For instance, the Forest Service implemented “hazardous fuel reductions” on 200,000 acres in Montana. Beyond the fact that the term “hazardous fuel reductions” is misleading, because these practices increase fire hazards in many instances.
For example, thinning opens the forest to significant solar radiation, dries the soil, and increases the vapor pressure deficit, making trees and shrubs more flammable. Thinning also promotes higher wind penetration, and wind is the primary factor in the spread of embers that boost large wildfires.
The other problem with promoting fuel treatments is that one can’t predict where a fire will ignite and burn. Less than 1-2% of wildfires encounter fuel treatment.
So, the public gets the costs and damage resulting from active forest management but with little benefit.
Fuel treatments are not benign. They remove biomass and carbon from the forest. They kill many trees (usually not counted as “mortality”), and the disturbance they cause can promote the spread of weeds, displacement of wildlife, and harm to scenic values.
A review of 1500 wildfires in dry forests around the West found that woodlands under “active forest management,” such as thinning or prescribed burning, were more likely to burn at higher severity than landscapes protected from logging, such as parks and wilderness, even though they presumably have more “fuels” than treated landscapes.
A far more effective fire strategy is to reduce community vulnerability by decreasing fuels near buildings and infrastructure. This also has the positive outcome of enabling wildfires to be restored to their natural functions in nearby wildlands vegetation.
Leave a Reply