Agents believe that the true cost of preparedness will be understood through the FLAME Act of 2009. Though some priorities appear faultfinding in this act, one translucent initiative is the cost of flame. To mitigate the budget, and keep it prospectively within the appropriate agencies, two accounts were set up to address the expenses: $61 million for the Department of the Interior, and $413 million for the Forest Service. These funds don't even account for the millions already part of the regular budget.
Overall there is practical application the understanding that no amount of modeling or simulation or book smarts is going to fully design a sustainable cohesion of strategy because nothing can replace practical experience.
As Phase I of the 2011 Cohesive Strategy states applicability must be intended to apply to all (individuals) regions. Yet, a strategy for fire and even fuels treatment in an Arizona fuel and topography would not be exactly applicable in a Pacific Northwest fuel mosaic. It would needs to be adjusted to compensate for noticeable variables. This still doesn’t’ change the fact that a strategy needs to be developed that meets local, regional and national needs (Cohesive 2011).
An overarching set of principles is a diametric need to alleviate a certain amount of burden on the human psychological factor. Put quite simply—in a code of law the law is applied to those within its jurisdiction. When two different jurisdictions claim jurisdiction over a matter it creates diversity. Through this diversity another set of codes then claims jurisdiction. Thereby eliminating the dispute between the two lower factions. In other words, put into application, a fire burning on state lands would then need to be addressed through state code. However, if said fire crossed into another state’s jurisdiction in order to maintain the chain of command and manifest order in operation, it demands that diversity would then enable the federal codes jurisdiction. Thereby seizing all authority the federal codes would then give both state codes an inapplicability.
This scenario could be implicated with the diversity between federal agencies as well as state and private land owners, a sort of order of operations to form cohesion. This order of operation poses a threat however, in that not all lands contain the same risks and variables. From a hypothetical standpoint then, to use a code designed for Maine in a California climax or even seral species, it becomes problematic due to the overall diversification between species and the applicable burning index, rates of spread, etc…. This isn’t even taking in aspects of topography and weather.
Here, for the policies to wok away from the metaphysical landscape of pen and paper, a need that fire behavior regions must be identified, and within said regions an overall policy for “Go no Go” actions then must be formed. In other words, training to implicate policy must be diversified then funneled into a specific area that all officials and laborers know the overarching principles on a national level, and are also firmly set on the ground with strategy at local variance.
The Cohesive Strategy Phase I of 2011 defines risk management by the evaluation of exposure to the extremities, versus the gain that the said exposure will attain. For overall practicum, flame for resource benefit joins the wildland with the urban in a comprehensive endowment that states: fire is both ecologically and economically beneficial to the land. Ecologically, as a statement that forest health sometimes needs its litter floor swept clean in order to continue on, without falling susceptible to the natural hazards overabundance of fuels provide. These hazards of course are not limited to fire alone: bug species infestation and mold or fungus to name two. Both pose serious problems to the genus of white bark pine.
This problem is not new, nor has it gone unrecognized. The Strategy lists that “Rigorous wildfire prevention programs are supported across all jurisdictions.” Whether intended or unintended a cohesion and implication for fire management of these aspects—prevention of large fires by fuel reduction would aid in succession of tree species, wildlife and landscape succession, along with the ecological interactions of mankind—a non-shift in priorities that will meet different agency’s land management goals as well.
At present Phase I of the Cohesive Strategy has just mapped a landscape for overall conjunction of policies and strategy. While selecting regions for individualized risk assessment. It needs and maybe a better correlative analysis between the Pacific Northwest and Oklahoma to show diversity in fuels mosaic. Overarching a principle that shows a better starting point that more compartmentalized policy is needed on a smaller regional basis. According the 2011 policy (7) the as yet to be drafted Phase II is purported to focus at measurement of risk in order to address risks more at multiple scales (11).
For the circle of fire to be complete it needs to start at the top, arch down and back up, connecting the three major chords. A mathematical analysis that brings fires out of their perspective triangles with fixed points, and allows for more of a circular ring; with everything all encompassed of fire within said “Ring of Fire.”
As stated above, as stated in the Strategies conclusion, this is not an endpoint, it’s a beginning. As fire and the circle of life continue to revolve and evolve the evolution of thought must likewise continue to evolve and revolve. As outlined in Phase II of the Strategy the collaborative process that allows the evolution of thought to grasp the overall scheme, must address the diametrics of each part of the process and is a necessity to end fuel buildup, aid suppression, eliminate fund depletions and hazards to the interfaces between forested land and commercial or residential properties.
Within eight hours of detection a FMO, FUO (Fire Management/Unit Officer) has to size the fire’s implications. Then they enter the decision making process to decide whether to manage it for resource benefit or not. If a fire manager intentionally allows a forest to burn, wouldn't it make more sense if the fuels were removed beforehand, processed through a bioreactor that both captured the energy for use in human populations, and filtered all the harmful toxins out of the emissions before they entered the atmosphere?
