West Region Wildfire Council Meeting Minutes 4/12/12 Meeting Attendance Name Agency Email 1 Chris Barth Montrose Interagency Fire [email protected] 2 Randy Chappell USFS/BLM 3 Lilia Colter WRWC [email protected] 4 Tom Connor LHVFD [email protected] 5 Tim Cudmore CSFS Gunnison [email protected] 6 Jason Cooley Delta Fire [email protected] 7 Steve Denny CDEM [email protected] 8 Steve Ellis CSFS [email protected] 9 Hugo Ferchau Gunnison [email protected] 10 Doug Fritz Hotchkiss Fire [email protected] 11 Junior Mattivi Ouray County Sheriff [email protected] 12 Jim McCarthy Log Hill Village [email protected] 13 Scott Morrill Gunnison EM [email protected] 14 Jodi Rist Montrose CSFS [email protected] 15 John Rogers Log Hill/Montrose Fire [email protected] 16 Austin Shelby CSFS Montrose [email protected] 17 Dennis Spritzer Gunnison Fire Marshal [email protected] 18 Deb Veo Montrose County EM [email protected] Objective/Purpose The Council gathered to discuss the following: Introductions Introductions were made by those that attended; roster above. Fire Behavior Modeling Demonstration: Randy Chappell Approval of Minutes Minutes approved Wildland Fire Outlook Recent area fires Weather outlook New Business/ Round Robin Fire Behavior Modeling Demonstration: Randy Chappell The West Region Wildfire Council welcomed Randy Chappell, the BLM’s Zone Fire Management Officer to the April WRWC meeting. Randy’s presentation to the WRWC included an overview of the different fire behavior modeling software programs, their different capabilities and uses as well some examples of how these programs were utilized for local fires and prescribed burns. Wildfire Decision Support System (WFDSS): Required on all FS fires and beginning to be required on all extended attack fires. Has to do with decision documentation. Behave: Rate of Spread model, takes into account 13 different fuel models and constant weather calculations FlampMap: Provides a snapshot in time. Flame length and Rate of Spread are calculated for every pixel on a map. This program can make minimum travel time projections for 1-3 days out. This program is useful for determining if a fire will make its way to certain areas and how fast it will make it to those areas. FARSITE: takes weather predictions and outputs an estimated perimeter. (Called near-term fire behavior) FSPro: gives predictions for fire behavior 7-30 days out. Utilizes data collected from Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) to output a probability map for fires under different circumstances. Answers questions like: will a fire reach this interstate? Satellite Imagery discussion: The group discussed how satellite imagery is used for determining fuel loads. All programs utilize imagery/ data from a program called LandFire. However, in 2007 a program called Rapid Refresh gave more precise fuel information and updates for large events such as beetle kill, fires and landscape scale fuels reduction projects. The group discussed that this program only uses data from the Feds and there haven’t been any private land treatments added into the database. Jodi and Austin made the suggestion that they share mapping layers that included larger scale treatments from their WinDET/WebDET systems. Other Terms/available programs: RAWS: Remote Automated Weather Stations: many programs utilize weather data collected by RAWS. The group discussed that many of these stations are located on Federal lands and are sometimes located at higher elevations than FD zones/altitudes. Programs will interpret data from the closest RAWS station(s). WindWizard: This program takes higher level winds and puts them down on the ground. It then uses color codes arrows to show ground wind speed and direction. Programs like FARSITE and FSPro use this in calculating outputs. WindNinja: takes weather from RAWS stations, triangulates and calculated real time wind. Jodi asked a question about the accuracy of the runs as compared to real time field observations. Randy answered her question by pointing out that the more runs/calibrations, the more accurate the outputs seem to be. Fire Spread Probability: Doesn’t calculate or predict where the fire will go, but outputs the probability given zero suppression efforts and the most severe weather conditions, the probability that the fire will reach certain perimeters. This program is extremely useful for fire managers when deciding about suppression efforts/ tactics. The group discussed that since so many of these programs rely on data provided by RAWS, there could be some potential issues give the current weather trends. The point being that we are currently breaking weather norms so predictions based off of historical data may not be as accurate as we’d like. However, many of the programs can be manipulated for current weather conditions. MAPS: Fire Flow Paths: Randy showed the group a couple of maps that showed outputs of major fire flow paths. These maps are great resources for fuels management because they can show where/how to strategically place fuels treatments in order to curb fire intensity and growth in treated areas. WFDSS map: Randy showed the group an example of a fire start that occurred near Naturita in Montrose County. He added in predicted flame lengths, showed the group the potential for crown fire behavior and completed an arrival time run. He also over-layed the planning area perimeter for the managed fire. The result provided a fire perimeter that showed any problem areas for them to cut off. Randy went on to tell the group that the fire was being managed for multiple objectives but heavy rains ended up putting the fire out. Beaver Fire Map: Randy showed the group a map that was actually used during a fire to make fire management decisions. There was concern that given certain conditions the fire could make it to the Mackenzie Springs/ Brown Ranch area which is fairly populated. By showing the group the map and the completed behavior run, Randy told the group that the fire actually only had between a 2 and 4 percent chance of reaching those areas. Fire Weather Outlook: Chris Barth and Steve Ellis talked to the group about the fire weather outlook for the area. Chris pointed out that the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) provides a national three month outlook at the beginning of each month. He also pointed out that the Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center (RMACC) provides an outlook with interactive modeling. Weather Outlook Summary: Chris Barth summarized the most recent weather outlook report, saying that leading up to this month (April) conditions overall were warmer and dryer. They were predicting some moisture recovery in the month of April but then going back to warmer and dryer conditions. The report also suggested for increasing drought conditions for the area. EL Nino/ LA Nina: is in the middle of a transition so predictions are less certain. They have not released a monsoonal forecast for the area as of yet. Spring moisture will really determine how much of a green-up is going to occur for the area. 1000hr Fuel Moisture: the 1000 hour fuel moistures were at approx. 10% as of a week before the April 12th meeting. Chris pointed out that typically the 1000 hour fuel moistures are at about 20% for this time of year. Lightning: Steve Ellis pointed out that surrounding areas had been receiving lots of lightning and had gotten some resulting starts. Informing the Public: Steve stressed the importance of informing the public about what is going on with the weather/ fire conditions. He expects that there will be some sort of restrictions that go into effect later in the summer and reminded folks in the meeting about the effects that having fire restrictions can potentially have on the area and economy. The 2002 fire season restrictions (no campfires = no campers). Recent Area Fires: The group discussed the rather busy past few weeks for many local fire departments and local/Federal agencies. A summary of the area fires is located below (taken from the MIFMU Monthly April Newsletter): “Several fires in Gunnison County kept firefighters busy in early April. Local fuel and weather conditions have been indicative of the potential for significant fire activity with multiple Red Flag Warnings issued during the early part of the month. In all, five wildfires occurred un Gunnison County during the holiday weekend, and firefighters from Montrose Interagency Fire Management Unit (MIFMU) responded to four of them - working along with our cooperators. The Ohio Creek Fire was reported on April 6th. The fire was the result of an escaped ditch burn on private property. The fire burned a total of 85 acres and remained entirely on privately-owned land. Nearby residents were evacuated briefly on April 6th, but were allowed to return to their homes that evening. The fire was contained on April 7th. Resources from Gunnison County Fire Protection District, Gunnison County Sheriff’s Office and the US Forest Service responded to the Ohio Creek Fire. The MM 125 Fire was reported on April 6th. Firefighters from Paonia Fire Department, Gunnison County Sheriff’s Office, Colorado State Forest Service, and MIFMU responded to the fire. The MM 125 Fire was the result of an escaped pile burn which started on private land and moved on to land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. An additional Type 2 hand crew was brought in from out of the area to assist with the suppression effort. The fire was contained on April 9th—with a final size of 117 acres. The Brush Creek Fire was reported on April 7th. This fire was a result of an escaped ditch burn that started on private land and moved on to National Forest System lands.