• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2024 Wildfire Season

I am fairly certain that Parks Canada gets a say about the townsite.

If the town of Jasper wants to issue a building permit for a story hotel, it is almost a certainty Parks Canada could veto it (hypothetical situation…)

The activities of the municipal government of Jasper are authorized/regulated by (among many other federal and provincial statutory instruments):

Agreement for the Establishment of Local Government in Jasper dated June 13th, 2001

 
The activities of the municipal government of Jasper are authorized/regulated by (among many other federal and provincial statutory instruments):

Agreement for the Establishment of Local Government in Jasper dated June 13th, 2001


And the Federal forest management policies are 'drawing fire' now...


Opinion: 'Green' forest policy turned Jasper into a tinderbox​


The recent and ongoing disaster in Jasper National Park will undoubtedly generate a slew of commentary about the inevitable effects of climate change. While I readily agree that climate change is a huge factor in the spread of wildfires, in the current instance, it is not that simple.

I believe that a major part of the immediate problem in Jasper — which could have been considerably mitigated in all of the Rocky Mountain national parks — is the Parks Canada “green” policy of protecting the forest in all of the Rocky Mountain national parks as the primary objective of all of their current policies and operational activities.

Some 25 years ago, in my capacity then as deputy minister for Community Development, including responsibility for managing Alberta provincial parks, I was personally present at a meeting with senior Parks Canada and Alberta officials. At that meeting Fred McDougall, the Alberta deputy minister of Forestry, eloquently and passionately chastised the federal officials for their lack of foresight, stating unequivocally that their commitment to maximum preservation as the cornerstone of their forestry management policy was creating an explosive situation they would live to regret.

Several years ago, Waterton Lakes National Park experienced the first direct result of that failure to adapt. Now Jasper National Park is experiencing the same fate. Can Banff National Park dodge the bullet?

I seriously doubt that it will, as all three of these parks abut significant prairie regions, which for timeless millennia directly influenced the landscapes of the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains by channeling prairie fires into the valley bottoms and adjacent uplands.

 
And the Federal forest management policies are 'drawing fire' now...


Opinion: 'Green' forest policy turned Jasper into a tinderbox​


The recent and ongoing disaster in Jasper National Park will undoubtedly generate a slew of commentary about the inevitable effects of climate change. While I readily agree that climate change is a huge factor in the spread of wildfires, in the current instance, it is not that simple.

I believe that a major part of the immediate problem in Jasper — which could have been considerably mitigated in all of the Rocky Mountain national parks — is the Parks Canada “green” policy of protecting the forest in all of the Rocky Mountain national parks as the primary objective of all of their current policies and operational activities.

Some 25 years ago, in my capacity then as deputy minister for Community Development, including responsibility for managing Alberta provincial parks, I was personally present at a meeting with senior Parks Canada and Alberta officials. At that meeting Fred McDougall, the Alberta deputy minister of Forestry, eloquently and passionately chastised the federal officials for their lack of foresight, stating unequivocally that their commitment to maximum preservation as the cornerstone of their forestry management policy was creating an explosive situation they would live to regret.

Several years ago, Waterton Lakes National Park experienced the first direct result of that failure to adapt. Now Jasper National Park is experiencing the same fate. Can Banff National Park dodge the bullet?

I seriously doubt that it will, as all three of these parks abut significant prairie regions, which for timeless millennia directly influenced the landscapes of the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains by channeling prairie fires into the valley bottoms and adjacent uplands.

I would say this is very accurate. My wife and I have been going to Jasper every summer for the last 10 years and anyone that was paying attention could see there was a problem. The forests were full of dead trees and the problem just kept getting worse until we ended up with this disaster. Unfortunately I expect Banff will ended up in the same situation since the feds in charge of the parks will hold endless meetings and study the problem until well after the park and/or town burn down. The minister in charge of the national parks already said they had done 'everything' possible to avoid this. To my eye his 'everything' is actually synonymous with 'nothing'.
 
I would say this is very accurate. My wife and I have been going to Jasper every summer for the last 10 years and anyone that was paying attention could see there was a problem. The forests were full of dead trees and the problem just kept getting worse until we ended up with this disaster. Unfortunately I expect Banff will ended up in the same situation since the feds in charge of the parks will hold endless meetings and study the problem until well after the park and/or town burn down. The minister in charge of the national parks already said they had done 'everything' possible to avoid this. To my eye his 'everything' is actually synonymous with 'nothing'.
reading elsewhere, and I don't remember exactly where, that the only way to properly correct the problem is with a major fire such as the one that just hit Jasper. And by blaming global warming, the feds. are ensuring that remedial action of any nature will be too little and too late. By the by, did you read where the temperatures in the Antarctic have hit all time record lows at -79?
 
Is the actual townsite not a normal municipality?
From what I’ve been told, Jasper and Banff had referenda a few decades ago about becoming municipalities. Up to then, both towns were administered by Parks Canada. Banff chose to become a municipality and Jasper chose to remain administered by Parks Canada. Not sure if that changed since.
 
Talking to a friend of mine involved in fire management in Banff, the biggest opposition to fire remediation was the municipality and tourism businesses. They didn’t want tourists’ views to be smoked out or tourists to see any mechanical thinning or spacing. Even back in the 90’s, he described the Bow Valley as a tinder box waiting for the right conditions.
 
Start with the premise that eventually almost every hectare of forest is subject to fire at some time.

Now, what do you do?
 
Communities can protect themselves and infrastructure with mitigation strategies like FireSmart programs and prescribed burning. But you need buy-in from the locals.

My hometown was saved in large part because of FireSmart strategies for 30 years. Areas that weren’t treated burned more intensely and hotter than treated areas closer to town.

Property owners outside of communities should also take steps to mitigate against wildfires.
 
Attending last week’s 49th Natural Hazards Workshop in Colorado, several sessions discussed the urban interface with wildfires and various topics aligned with preparedness and mitigation for the risks from wildfires. Repeatedly, the message is clear, 90% of a successful effort is accomplished before a fire begins. Programs, such as FireSmart, removing burnable debris to 33 feet from habitable buildings and to use non-flammable building materials reduces the start of ember blown fires.

Once a wildfire begins, there was strong agreement that most firefighting efforts centre on saving lives over property. Therefore, allowing most things, such as buildings to simply burn the fuel sources out. No community has enough resources to save all buildings in any wildfire.

Some of the key experts involved in these panel discussions included, Chief Drew Smith, Los Angles County Fire Department, Sophia Soudani, LA County Board of Supervisors and Chief Kelly Burns, Ashland, Oregon.
Apropos
 
Interesting clip from BCWS regarding how many of X are deployed to fight fires.
While there isn’t a breakdown between rotary and fixed wing aircraft, there are about 196 aircraft of all types being used in the province. I would imagine Alberta is close to that number. The cost of flying nearly 200 aircraft nearly all day for weeks/months on end has to be huge. I wonder what the daily “sortie” rate is.

Also, surprisingly low # of heavy equipment which suggest not a lot of accessible terrain for building firebreaks.

As I wrote in a much earlier post, the wildfire near our farm was first contained using a jet aircraft painting red retardant around the fire, hammered by choppers dropping buckets of water on targets, and then extinguished under the tracks of dozers and later soaked by water trucks. That’s apparently text book and very rarely possible in BC.
For example the fire in Mara lake (Shuswap) currently out of control for weeks, it was only yesterday that ground crews could get at it because of the steepness of the terrain, lack of an accessible road, and hot weather pretty much scorching anyone on the ground nearby. (Almost 50C).
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0111.png
    IMG_0111.png
    242.1 KB · Views: 6
Interesting clip from BCWS regarding how many of X are deployed to fight fires.
While there isn’t a breakdown between rotary and fixed wing aircraft, there are about 196 aircraft of all types being used in the province. I would imagine Alberta is close to that number. The cost of flying nearly 200 aircraft nearly all day for weeks/months on end has to be huge. I wonder what the daily “sortie” rate is.
Had to try to add the Alberta information up as it's not published in the same manner. So based upon what I could add up for the forest areas via the wildfire app plus some Jasper updates:
1160 firefighters. 88 helicopters. 118 pieces of equipment (not counting at least 4 more with equipment groups). 7 IMT's deployed.
This would not include initial attack crews, air tanker numbers, pre-suppression aircraft/equipment (for new starts), and support roles for bases/districts.

Out of interest is the CIFFC situation report which shows where resources have been sent and where from:
CIFFC

I would imagine Alberta is close to that number. The cost of flying nearly 200 aircraft nearly all day for weeks/months on end has to be huge. I wonder what the daily “sortie” rate is.
In regards to the "sortie" rate most aircraft on the incidents are flying maximums (usually 8 hours) and would be limited to any extended days by federal aviation safety rules. Air Tankers are different due to the role/readiness for new starts and I would be unable to comment.
Also, surprisingly low # of heavy equipment which suggest not a lot of accessible terrain for building firebreaks.
BC also has many more rules around how heavy equipment can be used and access, not just slope, remains a major issue. If it will take several weeks to move enough of a scree slope to get the equipment up to the fire on a steep hill...it's just not an option. In Alberta topography tends to be less limiting and frankly we don't have the restriction to log the right of way prior to building guard like BC has...so much more agressive heavy equipment shows here.

But regardless of aircraft type, or heavy equipment used....it still takes manpower to do the dirty work and ensure the perimeter is secure and then fully out.
 
Just for curiosity, a 2 year old video of a Russian aircraft.

A Thrilling Flight on Aerial Firefighting Antonov An-32

 
Just for curiosity, a 2 year old video of a Russian aircraft.

A Thrilling Flight on Aerial Firefighting Antonov An-32

Had to look up where this was...Turkey. As far as I know the Russian airframes are not licensed for air tanker work in North America but they are used elsewhere around the world and do offer alternatives.

The AN-32P water bomber variant appears to hold 2,000 US gallons.
The newer Dash-8 Q400 water bomber variants hold 2460 US gallons.
A CL-415 water bomber holds 1620 US gallons.
A L-188 Electra water bomber holds 3,000 gallons.

Just some comparisons.
 
Had to look up where this was...Turkey. As far as I know the Russian airframes are not licensed for air tanker work in North America but they are used elsewhere around the world and do offer alternatives.

The AN-32P water bomber variant appears to hold 2,000 US gallons.
The newer Dash-8 Q400 water bomber variants hold 2460 US gallons.
A CL-415 water bomber holds 1620 US gallons.
A L-188 Electra water bomber holds 3,000 gallons.

Just some comparisons.
Do any besides the CL do scoop refills?
 
And how much does the 515 carry?
It looks like the proposed capacity of the CL-515's...which don't actually exist yet beyond drawing boards - will be 1850 gallons or +15% more capacity over the CL-415's.

A CL-215 holds 1440 US gallons so a +25% difference in load.
 
Do any besides the CL do scoop refills?
There are some Air Tractor 802 amphibian units (AT-802U) that can. Alberta and I think BC have some on contract from ConAir out of Abbotsford.

I'm less clear about the Ontario fleet as I don't see them much unless the CL-415's are exported.
Ontario also has a small fleet of Twin Otters on floats that I think are skimmer capable.
I'm not sure about the Ontario Turbo Beavers

The Martin Mars is no longer in service.
 
I'm less clear about the Ontario fleet as I don't see them much unless the CL-415's are exported.
Ontario also has a small fleet of Twin Otters on floats that I think are skimmer capable.
I'm not sure about the Ontario Turbo Beavers
This is a cut from a Skies Magazine article:

1722394676791.png

By the way the MNR describes its aviation fleet, I suspect the Turbo Beavers are no longer used for fire suppression, except perhaps in a support/transport role. Their fleet is a shell of what it once was. Heck, I used to live in a northern town where that one MNR base alone had four Turbo Beavers and a Twin Otter.

 
This is a cut from a Skies Magazine article:

View attachment 86950

By the way the MNR describes its aviation fleet, I suspect the Turbo Beavers are no longer used for fire suppression, except perhaps in a support/transport role. Their fleet is a shell of what it once was. Heck, I used to live in a northern town where that one MNR base alone had four Turbo Beavers and a Twin Otter.

Gogama?
 
Sioux Lookout.

On a second reading, I find the MNR's public description for its Twin Otter rather curious.

"The DHC-6 Twin Otter is equipped with tundra tires so it can land and take off from anywhere, making it useful for services where airports are not available"

I can't say I've ever seen a MNR aircraft equipped with what I would call "tundra tires". Besides, since most of northern Ontario is either forest, boreal or water, I'm not sure where they would intend to land that isn't at least a gravel runway.

"Each of our six aircraft can also be outfitted with water tanks to assist in wildland fire suppression"

I think every one I've seen has had amphibious floats, and I don't know if amphibious+water tank floats is a thing. Since moving their main maintenance centre from the river-based location to SSM airport, I imagine most if not all of their fixed wing fleet is amphibious.
 
Back
Top