We know it's pretty much an inevitability - forest fires happen.

Do people track the most susceptible places in the BWCA (or more broadly the Superior National Forest in general)?

I assume this would be the section of the 1999 blowdown area that hasn't already burned - west of the Cavity Lake fire I guess?

Is that correct, and/or are there other areas that may be susceptible for some other reason?

Is anything done to help prevent this beyond common sense campfire restrictions? I think I read at one point that parts of the blowdown area were "treated" (for lack of a better word) with something or other (again, not sure what I'm talking about here) that helped prevent the spread of one of the large fires at one point. My recollection was that this was something done before the fire ever started, not while it was burning. Anyone know what I'm talking about or if it's been done to other susceptible area as well?

with resources strapped in other states...I would bet that they aren't going to mess around with it until it gets out of control...like the Pagami fire...
lucky no one died in that...
dr bob

There is still a large area of blowdown that hasn't burned east of Gunflint Lake. In the Rose Lake area. Also parts of Basswood got caught in a wind storm summer of 2016 with blow down for fuel.

The Forest Service has the responsibility of managing the Superior National Forest. Because they schedule prescribed burns to protect property outside the wilderness, they most likely track susceptible areas, or have partners that do. I don’t think they would use chemicals if no fires were burning, but maybe you can find out here.

Individual prescribed fire projects east side: Caribou Trail, Gervais Landing, Halls Pond, Moose Fence, Pike Lake Road, Xmas-Richey Lake Road, Irish Creek

No info on west side yet.

I'll try to address your question, next area to burn. I've mentioned this before here, there are three main factors that effect fire behavior, fuel, weather and topography. You certainly have a huge amount of fuels back there. Not much topography, its pretty flat, not much in the way of steep hills. Weather is the big factor. If you have a run of higher temperatures, lower relative humidity and higher winds almost any area is susceptible to wildland fires. I'm not sure what the Forest Service policy is on lightning fires anymore. LindenTree3 would know if there is a change in controlling all fires or letting some burn. If they are still allowing some to burn that is a huge red flag for anyone in the wildland. Pagami Creek fire is a good example of what can happen.
I guess the bottom line is, be aware of what is going on around you all the time.

MHS67, and all.

I'll try to respond more tomorrow if I have time, or ASAP when things slow down.

We burned 200 acres today in NW Minnesota, and it is predicted to be windy for the next two days. I try not to put out mis-information regarding fires, since that is in my wheel house, and this question takes alot of thinking on my part.
I'm tired.

Today's action.

What kind of condition is the wood in that blew down during the big 1999 blow down? If it hasn't already burned its been laying around for almost 20 years, I'd imagine at least some of it has begun to rot and decompose reducing its fire risk.

nofish: "What kind of condition is the wood in that blew down during the big 1999 blow down? If it hasn't already burned its been laying around for almost 20 years, I'd imagine at least some of it has begun to rot and decompose reducing its fire risk.


"

Good point, that stuff is almost 20 years old now.

I really have no idea if it still serves as good fuel for a big forest fire.

LindenTree3: "MHS67, and all.


I'll try to respond more tomorrow if I have time, or ASAP when things slow down.


We burned 200 acres today in NW Minnesota, and it is predicted to be windy for the next two days. I try not to put out mis-information regarding fires, since that is in my wheel house, and this question takes alot of thinking on my part.
I'm tired.

Today's action.
"

hey... I thought you were retired not tired....

dr bob

Fire is GOOD!

dr bob.,

I am mostly retired and definately tired.

I work for my old fire district in Mn as an Emergency Firefighter.
I am not a regular government employee anymore, and only work on call as needed.

I'm too young and have too much energy, to quite working this soon.

OST

treehorn: "We know it's pretty much an inevitability - forest fires happen.

Do people track the most susceptible places in the BWCA (or more broadly the Superior National Forest in general)?

I assume this would be the section of the 1999 blowdown area that hasn't already burned - west of the Cavity Lake fire I guess?

Is that correct, and/or are there other areas that may be susceptible for some other reason?

Is anything done to help prevent this beyond common sense campfire restrictions? I think I read at one point that parts of the blowdown area were "treated" (for lack of a better word) with something or other (again, not sure what I'm talking about here) that helped prevent the spread of one of the large fires at one point. My recollection was that this was something done before the fire ever started, not while it was burning. Anyone know what I'm talking about or if it's been done to other susceptible area as well?"

Treehorn,
I'll try to answer your questions, keep in mind that it has been 15+ years since I worked for the Superior NF, I am not an authority.

The Superior NF has maps of the entire forest by age class and tree species, as well as (disturbance) the blow down areas.
Yes, the areas not treated from the 1999 blow down would be the most suspectible to fires, even 20 years later.

What does treated mean?
Treated usually refers to prescribed burning, but it can also refer to logging done to reduce forest volume in order to keep a fire on the ground, rather than running through the tops of the trees in a (Crown Fire).

While the blow down areas will be more suspictible to large fire growth, the USFS keeps their prioritys to areas that are near human developement. Areas with homes and business nearby are given priority for fuel treatments due to the simple fact that damage to that infrastructure can have dire consequences, rather than a fire in the rest of the wilderness.

Campfire and outdoor burning restrictions are one of the main things that can prevent unwanted fires, as well as general safe fire use, (Smokey Bears Message).
Most fires in the Superior NF are human caused.

This is the down and dirty IMHO, without getting into the weeds too much.

LindenTree3: "

treehorn: "We know it's pretty much an inevitability - forest fires happen.


Do people track the most susceptible places in the BWCA (or more broadly the Superior National Forest in general)?


I assume this would be the section of the 1999 blowdown area that hasn't already burned - west of the Cavity Lake fire I guess?


Is that correct, and/or are there other areas that may be susceptible for some other reason?


Is anything done to help prevent this beyond common sense campfire restrictions? I think I read at one point that parts of the blowdown area were "treated" (for lack of a better word) with something or other (again, not sure what I'm talking about here) that helped prevent the spread of one of the large fires at one point. My recollection was that this was something done before the fire ever started, not while it was burning. Anyone know what I'm talking about or if it's been done to other susceptible area as well?"

Treehorn,
I'll try to answer your questions, keep in mind that it has been 15+ years since I worked for the Superior NF, I am not an authority.


The Superior NF has maps of the entire forest by age class and tree species, as well as (disturbance) the blow down areas.
Yes, the areas not treated from the 1999 blow down would be the most suspectible to fires, even 20 years later.


What does treated mean?
Treated usually refers to prescribed burning, but it can also refer to logging done to reduce forest volume in order to keep a fire on the ground, rather than running through the tops of the trees in a (Crown Fire).


While the blow down areas will be more suspictible to large fire growth, the USFS keeps their prioritys to areas that are near human developement. Areas with homes and business nearby are given priority for fuel treatments due to the simple fact that damage to that infrastructure can have dire consequences, rather than a fire in the rest of the wilderness.


Campfire and outdoor burning restrictions are one of the main things that can prevent unwanted fires, as well as general safe fire use, (Smokey Bears Message).
Most fires in the Superior NF are human caused.


This is the down and dirty IMHO, without getting into the weeds too much."

Thanks for the reply and the info! Interesting stuff.

So...I don't know if you're a gambling man, but let's say you had to put money on the next area of the BWCA that will burn in a fairly large fire...talking like 20,000+ acres or bigger. One of the big fire events along the lines of Ham/Cavity/Pagami...where does your money lie?

So...I don't know if you're a gambling man, but let's say you had to put money on the next area of the BWCA that will burn in a fairly large fire...talking like 20,000+ acres or bigger. One of the big fire events along the lines of Ham/Cavity/Pagami...where does your money lie?

Treehorn,

I am way too far out of the loop and un-informed to make any educated guess on your question towards a specific area. If I were to gamble, I would put my money anywhere in the 1999 blowdown, that hasn't already burned.

Map of 1999 blowdown.

Treehorn, it sounds like there is a real concern about this fire issue. Is it so you will steer clear from an area that has a higher intense fire threat? Or am I reading to much into your thread?

MHS67: "Treehorn, it sounds like there is a real concern about this fire issue. Is it so you will steer clear from an area that has a higher intense fire threat? Or am I reading to much into your thread?"

No, that's not it at all. In fact, I'd probably be more inclined to visit an area that was at higher risk of burning, because once it burns, I will steer clear. The recently burned areas are not my favorite places to visit.

Just simple curiosity I guess.

The last area to have a major burn, the Pagami fire at 100,000 acres was not in the blowdown at all. The talk of a major fire in the blowdown area from 1999 is due to the excessive fuels in the forest. However, IMO, there are many parts of the BWCA that exhibit similar characteristics in terms of available fuel as the blowdown area.

I have witnessed burned areas re-burn just a few years later in part because the first fire was cool and crept along the ground which in turn killed the trees and created more fuel than before the first fire.

when I was in near Pickle Lake Ontairo just west of Wabakimi a few years ago I had a chance to talk to a forest ranger that was in town after fighting a fire. I mentioned to him that all of the trees are small as compared to the border country. I asked him if this was due to the soil and shorter seasons. He told me it's mostly due to fire. Forests don't get old enough to grow into old-growth.

I'm a big fan of old-growth forests but I think that saving the woods with suppression has come back to haunt us.

Tom