It’s been a wonderfully wet and green summer here in the San Luis Valley. I’m hearing regularly these days that, even in the north end of the valley, “it’s as green as I can remember.” Thanks to a robust North American Monsoon, we’ve had abundant rainfall that has kept our wild vegetation green and at very low risk of wildfire.
I can’t speak for our incredibly important farmers, but I suspect that this much rain has been problematic for them. However, from strictly the wildfire risk standpoint though, it has been great to not have unwanted wildfires filling the skies with smoke and, frankly, scaring residents with the uncertainty of where the fire will move to next. For now.
I’ve written occasionally about the role that fire plays in our environment, especially the wildlands around the San Luis Valley. We need fire, plain and simple, to provide ecosystem benefits that we cannot otherwise simulate as humans. Fire reduces vegetation build up, provides natural nutrients to the soils and creates/maintains habitat for many wildlife species. But the balance of where and when wildland fires are welcomed by humans is a delicate one.
As I write this, I was informed that the National Wildfire Preparedness Level was just raised to 5, the highest there is. An increase in wildfire activity both east and west of us has prompted the change which is driven in part by the reduced availability of firefighting resources. With that reduction comes the prudent action of holding off on conducting prescribed fires locally.
There are many considerations when deciding to ignite a prescribed fire, or controlled burn, as they are often referred to. The fuels conditions, or dryness of the vegetation and woody debris, must be in an optimal state so that it can burn effectively, but not too aggressively. Right now, it would be difficult to get the green vegetation to burn, but that could change soon with the onset of normal fall drying.
Land management agencies across the west typically embark on their well-planned and meaningful prescribed fire campaigns in both the spring and fall. The timing is designed around the shorter, cooler days when fire behavior will likely be only moderate, at best. And for shorter time periods. They conduct these burns in strategically pre-identified areas and systematically ignite the vegetation to achieve pre-determined objectives.
I think of how I mentioned not having unwanted wildfires earlier and qualified it by saying “for now.” The amazing grass and shrub growth will soon cure for the winter and will stand dry and ripe for fire. It will burn well with greater potential for faster spread, posing an increased resistance to control efforts.
This is where a well-placed and appropriately conducted prescribed burn can make a big difference on how a wildfire might affect the places that we do not want to burn so intensely, and of course, our homes, outbuildings, and other infrastructure. The careful application of fire in strategic locations will burn these tall and dry fuels under more manageable circumstances and reduce dangerous fuel loading to a less risky condition.
The wild lands around us contain a vegetation scheme that was developed over thousands of years with wildfires being a primary change component. We should use wildland fire to the most natural extent possible, including a healthy prescribed fire strategy. I’d rather see us conduct many more low-intensity, prescribed fires than witness the extreme burning of millions of acres each summer. I can tolerate the smoke because I know what the alternative is. But make no mistake; I only support the responsible application of fire in the right place, at the right time and for the right reason.
Gregg Goodland is the Public Affairs Officer for the Rio Grande National Forest. As an avid outdoor enthusiast, he encourages individual stewardship and responsible use of our public lands.
