An Essay on Wildfire Innovation and Context
Some Ideas, Commentary, and Metaphor Related to the Wildfire Innovator's Approach to Context.
Introduction
FireTech, or wildfire innovation, continues to progress by air, ground, and in supportive technologies, including cameras and other early detection hardware and software, home protection systems, and fire modeling. It is impressive the possibilities innovation is bringing into being, and the task is not easy. FireTech innovators operate in a context that includes paradoxes, quandaries, accelerations, and uncertainties. Suppose there are perceived apparent and direct pathways through this challenging context. In that case, they are largely expensive, resource-intensive, obtrusive, create unexpected results over extended time delays, and produce difficult-to-associate relationships of cause and effect. Understanding an innovation’s role in wildfire is derived from studying and apprehending its context, namely the challenges, paradoxes, and issues that define it and the resources that work within it. However, the focus here is less on the integration of innovations into the relational web of existing resources and more on addressing other significant challenges that characterize the context. A FireTech innovation may be entirely feasible at the level of resource integration and immediate needs. Still, in the critique of each innovation, it should be asked if the larger context was the primary consideration. Functionality in the fire environment is insufficient. There must be consideration of the effects over extended time frames and over a season of application.
Addressing the wildfire innovators’ context is the pathway to informed design. A small unfolding of the unresolved context forms a basis for designing and using innovations. Addressing context does not make the innovator’s job easier. In fact, context makes the task of innovating more difficult and complex, but increases the probability of designing something effective for the greater good.
Innovation will always mean the introduction of something new. Creating something new is intrinsically neither good nor bad, and being new is not sufficient to ascribe value to a technology. Evaluating innovations can only happen over time, and use on wildfire or prescribed fire incidents, integrated with time-proven resources. Value propositions crafted for fundraising and selling to customers are tentative and likely to transform as they are used in practice. New by no means indicates good.
Wildfire innovation remains something to be acknowledged and analyzed. Innovation should receive a standing ovation if, from the conception of the technology as early as the concept phase, it is aligned with the realities of the wildfire landscape, also known as the wildfire innovator’s context. This essay explores this context and how to chart a way through it. This essay is not anti-innovation. It instead has an affinity for innovations that understand the complexities and difficulties of creating something new for the tangled wildfire context. All design displaces something. Context should never be one of those things.
Chapter 1: A Context of the Unexpected
To begin to understand the FireTech innovator’s context is to grasp it as nonlinear. It becomes more so when innovations produce technologies that are misaligned with it. Innovators who are aligned with the context through their understandings and technologies work with the context designing with the “musician's ear which perceives the competitions symbioses, interferences, overlappings of themes in the same symphonic flow” (Morin, 1992, p.139).
As the context is nonlinear, causes can create undesirable and disproportionate effects that appear much later and are distant in space. At the same time, large causes can create little to no or entirely inverse effects, and small causes can create large effects that may still be distant in time in space. For example, in many ecosystems, fighting fires contributes significantly to making fires worse. The cause of fighting fires aggressively is associated with the effect of creating conditions conducive to more severe, intense, and costly fires that are more challenging to contain. The cause of “fire exclusion” through suppression may produce wildfires of a greater intensity at a time and possibly location distant from the initial fire.
The underlying observed nonlinear relationship of cause and effect is that fighting fire confines fires to a certain spatial footprint. Within the footprint, some or all of the pre-existing vegetation has been removed, effectively managing fire risk (though burns can be too severe and require generations to recover). The remaining forest land remains untouched by the process of combustion that removes vegetation. Instead, fire exclusion allows the vegetation outside of the fire footprint to grow taller, thicker, and closer together. If weather and ignition align, fires outside of the original fire footprint could burn far more rapidly, severely, and intensely than the original one suppressed a decade ago. To many, this appears nonlinear, unexpected, and strategically puzzling. If this is the case, what is the long-term merit of suppression machines?
While together, the wildfire, vegetation, fuels, and topography often dictate strategy and tactics rather than incident management teams, there is an interest in suppressing fires quickly to reduce the probability of a larger fire. Suppose the vegetation, landscape, and weather align. In that case, a fire may burn so severely that it would take generations for potentially massive acreage to recover from being piles of ash, through bad fire, as noted earlier.
The exclusion of fire through suppression, compounded by a changing climate, has put decision makers in fire management in a situation where they cannot look beyond the immediate present, owing to the complexity, uncertainty, and risk that lies in managing for the future. We are what we repeatedly do, and what we have repeatedly done is stop predominantly artificial fire from performing its role in managing artificial landscapes and, in turn, through this exclusion, created a situation with no direct, obvious, or clear way through. Ideally, the FireTech market will develop technologies that distinguish between good fire that does not damage ecosystems and accomplishes fire management goals (including prescribed fire) and bad, overly severe fire, and provide strategies that can adapt effectively and efficiently to either. However, from observation, most innovations do not integrate history and system dynamics. Rather, they are intent on supporting aggressive suppression, and in turn, exacerbating a problem the wildfire community already does not know how to solve.
By valid evaluative criteria that make it sensible, it appears a majority is taking more of a stand on the suppression strategy. Conversely, using different valid evaluative criteria, a minority are proponents for letting fires burn under specific parameters across the landscape. It should be noted that there is presently not a legal structure to do so, but should one return, allowing fire to burn a larger area than would be likely under a direct suppression strategy would be beneficial to ecology and fire risk.
Intentionally allowing more fire on the landscape or having an increasing number of bad fires that defy containment and burn across larger areas when it is not planned, both seem inevitable. As the fire environment grows more explosive through suppression and a warming climate, it seems unavoidable that more fire will be on the landscape as it defies the best efforts of resources to contain it. However, this fire may be distinguished as bad fire, in that it burns so intensely it scorches the surfaces of the fields, hills, and mountains it leaves behind, and is generally unavoidable. Pictured below is a fire that might be observed as good fire slowly backing down a slope in California, not burning intensely, but still reducing fuel loads. This is an ideal situation until the weather changes, or an administrator wants the fire out, and part of the “fire use” strategy that is on the other side of the Venn diagram from suppression. In the middle of the diagram is “indirect strategy,” where fires are fought at a distance for safety or other purposes, including burning a greater area. Control lines are built away from the main fire, and then some of the vegetation is burned between the main fire and the control lines intentionally so the fire does not challenge them directly. Opportunities to let good fires burn wane in the absence of a policy that promotes fire use, or fire for resource benefit, and conditions for bad, overly destructive fires increase.
Two competing strategies for addressing wildfire are considered truthful at once by competing parties. The first truth is that fire suppression is the best option, especially when values are at risk, including ecosystems. However, in many ecological contexts, preventing wildfires from burning larger areas by aggressively suppressing them creates landscapes more supportive of rapid fire growth and severe burning. Suppression wins the day but loses the century. Second, there is the truth of the fire use strategy, which advocates for more fire on the landscape to reduce vegetation loads and, in doing so, manage fire risk, which may find a legal basis again. If it does, there may be potential to let good fires burn again within specific trigger points and reduce dangerous vegetation loads, ideally without harming ecosystems, and someday start to offset the negative outcomes of suppression. Suppression has positive outcomes. It saves lives, livelihoods, property, and resources. However, at the same time, it defers and escalates the risk that will be posed to future firefighters in the form of demands and safety, other values at risk, and resource intensity.
The fire use strategy is not always appropriate, and it does engender risk for decision-makers who let a fire burn when it might have been suppressed earlier at lower cost and risk. This strategy requires an upfront investment primarily in ground and aviation resources, monitoring the fire, and creating distant and longer containment lines to stop the fire eventually. Fire use works to return landscapes from their heavily artificial and problematic state, through intentionally letting the right fires burn, followed up with an investment in prescribed fire in the area on a regular interval.
Two things are true at once, and both have their negatives and positives. Meanwhile, there is a more than a century-old conflict over the truth of wildfire management. Namely, is aggressive suppression the truth, or is more fire on the landscape the truth? When they interact, both truths have a way of injuring one another. At the moment and likely into the future, suppression will continue to reign supreme. With the loss of life, property, and ecological damage connected to prescribed fires and firing operations on wildfires, full suppression is indeed considered the safest immediate option. The conflict over the truth or what should dominantly be seen as the truth continues among warring factions.
The fire use-related strategies include public and private prescribed fire and fire-adapted narratives that include fire-adapted outreach organizations seeking to inspire others to take action to adapt their homes, property, surrounding landscapes, and everyday life to fire. Ideally, fire-adapted landscapes initiatives hope to inspire and possibly even manage a transition in a community regarding how the wants and needs of space and place are understood and met. Such initiatives have inspired community groups to function as part of a broader social network with public and private partners, removing excess vegetation from around homes and creating strategically placed fire breaks. Mechanical thinning can be folded into fire use; once the cut material is on the ground it can be burned as part of a prescribed fire, the cut trees can be piled and burned, or the trees can be burned as soon as they are cut and dragged to the burn pile, which was done below. Prescribed fire can be used to maintain the thinned area at regular intervals.
Big thinning projects do not come along easily. Here, fire adaptation and fire use intersect. Sometimes called a fire surrogate, thinning trees can reduce fire risk while prospectively tempering fire behavior should there be one. Cutting down trees and removing brush does what a fire would, but with the intentionality, agency, and selectiveness of fire managers. The pictures above show what tree thinning can accomplish, creating a landscape with reduced fire danger that can then be easily managed through prescribed fire. Not pictured are the over ten people cutting in parallel, dragging, and burning trees during the initial project for twelve days. Also not visible are the long consecutive days and the enormous effort put forth over the years to accomplish this project with highly trained and funded resources. The lack of these specialized resources, skills, equipment, time commitment, and surrounding infrastructure, such as fresh food, a camp, a chainsaw, and chaps for everyone, saw maintenance equipment, is not common for fuels projects, especially those initiated by community members. It seems highly unlikely that fire-adapted efforts will scale quickly and correctly enough to the level they are needed to start reducing wildfire risk substantially. Finding the will for home hardening, creating defensible space, and changing the way property and homes are lived in is difficult enough.
An important part of this picture is prescribed fires. Prescribed fires carefully ignite a controlled area of a landscape that is burned for ecosystem health, and avoid reducing mountains of ash from an intensely burning fire. Prescribed fires are, however, ideally appropriate for the context they are burning within. In the future, prescribed fires will need to continuously find a balance between ecological benefits and wildfire risk management, as risk management is not an assumed outcome of prescribed fires.
An intention toward suppression is not benevolent, and neither is a fire use strategy that encompasses prescribed fire and fire adaptation. Suppression is a more problematic strategy given its long-term reinforcing effects on landscapes throughout the country. However, in the same breath, suppression saves lives, livelihoods, property, and prevents extreme damage to ecosystems. The question can be asked, “How long will a suppression-centric strategy be practical and effective?” That is a question without an easy answer. As has been repeatedly observed, fire conditions determine whether suppression will be effective or not. Noted earlier was the nonlinear causation between the majority of wildfires that are suppressed early, enabling neighboring vegetation to accumulate. An aggressive suppression strategy creates conditions where future fires will burn in conditions that are harder to suppress. Wildfire suppression is both a short-term and medium-term success to be glorified, and in the long term, it is its own worst enemy. It is an oversimplification, but valid nonetheless: Fighting fire makes fires worse. Context-free innovations that intend purely toward suppression may offer prescribed fire control as a secondary, less practical revenue-based strategy. These innovators reduce their commitment to one strategy over another but run the risk of being ineffective or overcostly in at least one strategy, with tactics held separately.
Fire use, to include prescribed fire, is also not always toward the greater good. A component of this is the need, to whatever end it is already practiced, to balance prescribed fires to ecosystem benefit with reducing fire risk, as the intention to do both must be present. The United States Forest Service explains it conducts 4,500 prescribed fires annually, with an escape rate of more than one escape for every 1,000 prescribed fires, or six escapes per year, with the highest probability of escape in “May, June, September, and November.” The authors note that “In addition, prescribed fires executed before or at the start of the wildfire season are associated with a higher incidence of escape and result in larger escaped areas” (Li, Baijnath-Rodino, York, Quinn-Davidson, & Banerjee, 2025). Escaped prescribed fires, despite being incredibly rare, can garner attention that is deleterious to future prescribed efforts and result in inane bureaucratic reorganizations. Not to mention, escaped prescribed fires can cost as much as a billion dollars to contain, as was the case with the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico in 2000. The most destructive wildfire in New Mexico history, the Calf Canyon and Hermits Peak fire, which were the result of purposeful ignition and merged, burning 900 structures, 530 square miles, 341,735 acres, at a cost of five million dollars a day to contain which accumulated to 132 million, though higher costs have been reported. The recovery from the intentional burning turned the most destructive fire in New Mexico’s history, resulted in massive recovery-related costs.
The actuarial report calculated about $1.9 billion is necessary for reforestation and landscape restoration alone, along with $1.6 billion for smoke and ash cleaning and $771 million for rebuilding burned structures, among other costs (Upper South Platte Partnership, 2024).
The Lower North Fork Fire started on March 26, 2012, in Colorado as an escaped prescribed fire that would proceed to burn 4,140 acres, leading to the destruction of 24 homes and three fatalities. Firing operations, including the Dixie Fire and others, using an indirect “big box” firing operations strategy, have been problematic. Lastly, fire adaptation and its calls to action for defensible space, vegetation breaks, and thinning projects and home hardening may all turn out to be insufficient if a fire burning extremely enough tears through the community. All fire-adapted communications need to make explicit the uncertainty they transfer to the listener.
No innovation is neutral. Every innovation enables and promotes one strategy while demoting the other. One strategy is made increasingly possible, making the other much less possible by design in return. Every innovation is intended toward one strategy more than the other. Innovations that straddle both suppression strategies and fire-use strategies apply the same suppression technology in a fire-use context, which is a simplified approach. Nothing ventured…..?
Chapter 2: Light Springs Forth
With all that has been said, there ultimately are no clear, obvious pathways through the paradoxes, quandaries, accelerations, and uncertainties presented by wildfire if one is aware of them. Being unaware of them makes it easy to shine a light through an unseen twisted mess. The mess becomes nothing but an open, simple forest when it is encountered without the knowledge of the wildfire innovator’s context. Even if context is evaded, given time, easy solutions will still encounter the difficulties of fire suppression, fire use, the human dimensions of both, fire adaptation, and produce unwanted outcomes. Working with context indicates how an innovation will confront the challenges that characterize wildfire before design and deployment. Furthermore, innovators will understand the technology's place not only in the present, time-bound micro-sphere of suppression and its integration with firefighting resources, but across the temporally extended meso and macro spheres of wildfire as a process, in process.
In the Woods
The issues integral to wildfire innovation are the entangled and dense thickets and tangle of copses encountered once one becomes determined to provide an innovative strategy that embraces the symphony of context. Whether an aspiring innovator whose product has not yet been evaluated by fire, or a serial successful innovator working to move a new product to market, both should consider how this nearly impenetrable vegetation of challenges ended up here. A simple solution is mapped around the context’s challenges or through it, threading the needle with ease through the open air around the thickets, brambles, and twisted branches.
However, it should be asked about these challenges in the form of copses, brambles, and thickets, “How are they able to maintain themselves so thick and tall?” “How is there still growth if the largest brush and trees block the sun?” An innovator might ask, “Did someone till the soil and plant all this here?” “Or did it just grow here?” “How fertile must that soil be to support all of this life?” “What hydrates all of this vegetation?” “To create and sustain all this, was or is a human involved?” “What is the way through?” These questions are asked of a thick forest with trees and brush in the same way an innovator might ask, “How did the wildfire suppression paradox appear? How is it sustained?” “When is suppression the best strategy and when is it not?” “Why has fire use not been scaffolded and accelerated to meet the rising tide?” “How has this problem I am trying to address grown so big, entangled, and wicked?” “Who engages in sustaining this problem?” “How can this technology be used to pursue different strategies comprehensively?” “What is the way through?” To know the complexities of the wildfire innovator’s context is to design with it instead of through it.
A light shone from the lamp held in the middle of a small clearing in a dome of intruding and entangled brambles, vines, and twisted trunks and branches, traveling only as far as the eye can see. There is no way through without interacting with the entangled mess. When context is addressed, there is no clear-cut path that is complementary to the context and opens toward successful innovation that does not involve enormous force, obtrusiveness, disruption, resource intensity, high cost, and unanticipated outcomes. To find the pathway an innovation should follow and gain understanding, meaning, and significance, and the challenges it should interact with, the wildfire context must be engaged with as described below. The pathway is through every opening the light touches, and learning from the open ones that remain dark.
Light is not sourced from a lamp in the darkness. Rather, the exploration of problems in the dense vegetated world of the context lets light in and shows areas where an innovation may pass through and attract knowledge. Being in search of understanding does not involve brute force but acting with the context rather than avoiding or cutting through it. To find the beginning of a way through the dense thickets and dark copses, paradoxes, quandaries, uncertainties, and challenges, must first be recognized and respected, as they have been there a long, long time before FireTech emerged.
There is tension on the branches, and there are various binds among them. Effort is exerted to create openings in the vast, tangled trunks and twisted limbs, and the sturdy branches of brambles and thickets before the right combination acquiesces. Some of the branches and twisted limbs can be pulled apart, letting some light in. Then there is more searching, and then more branches are opened while others cannot. Some openings remain dark after the tension dissipates. Light shines through in a completely unanticipated space behind the innovator, startling them. Then more searching. Then more light. Then, more dark but open spaces with light appearing elsewhere. The process continues.
The world of the thicket, bramble, and copse, the context of wildfire innovation, now has crisscrossing rays of light strewn throughout it. Light shines directly from gaps in the entangled denseness. Other spaces that allowed themselves to be opened remain dark yet were found to produce light elsewhere as part of the nonlinearity of the context. Both the expected and unexpected bright spots invited an innovation to pass through them. The innovator gains an understanding of context as they see the gaps in each challenge they opened and let light in their innovation can pass through based on what it will make possible. The innovation does not sail through the challenges without touching them. No, the gaps found in them and the light that beckons are unique opportunities to address small parts of the challenges and grow to understand them further.
The gaps in the limbs and vines that made it possible to create an opening that remained dark are peculiar. A lamp aided in seeing further into the entanglement through the space that had been opened, but it was incomparable to the beams of light present elsewhere. Early on in exploring the context, it was easy to tell that a dark opening had produced light behind, beside, or above the innovator. After more light was brought into the formerly dark context, there was no way to tell from where the light had seemingly randomly appeared. All that could be noticed was that there was more light in the thicket. A phenomenon like this is to be expected in a context where cause and effect are not linearly joined. It follows that dark openings produce distant light, even distant light that moves. This does not mean only following the light. Instead, it indicates following the light and understanding the lightless areas, as they would not have opened if they did not have value. Showing the nonlinearities of wildfire innovation context indicates there is no straight path for an innovation.
There are rays of light emanating from many of the openings that the thick vegetation afforded the innovator. The beams cross over one another and cast light in different directions. Some seem to connect from one gap in the limbs to another. The rays of light shine through the small holes made between branches that offer access to challenges and illuminate them. There is an impressive collection of rays of light, like luminescent rectangular-shaped beams, some going straight, some bouncing off of tree trunks, representing the complexity of the context. Directions of travel are hard to follow. Many beams of light weave in and out of others, some cross over themselves, others turn around and head back forward, before darting off in another direction, over and under vegetation, like an amusement park attraction. For the innovator, none of this may readily make any sense. However, these rays of light and dark openings are the context reacting to the innovator and showing them where to go and what problems to address with their technology. Making sense of the complex context wildfire innovation occurs within, the brambles, thickets, twisted copses of trees, with the thick vegetation, are opportunities for learning and informing design.
This is an accurate representation of light being cast around the dense vegetation while standing in the center of the small clearing. It is a dizzying array of entangled beams of light passing through a number of small holes in the array of challenges facing wildfire, that is, the wildland innovators’ context. Dizzying perhaps, but if one follows the light and explores the dark spots, they may create the next generation of wildfire technology.
The dense vegetation provided the opportunity for openings, which the innovator had to find and create to align themselves with the context. Many openings let light in, indicating the pathway the design of the innovation should follow, as well as its use. The innovator must now look at the scene pictured above and determine where to start.
Understanding, but not resolving, these challenges and offering a corresponding technological strategy is the true task (and plight) of the innovator. Gaining a deeper understanding of the openings that let light in and the dark spots that do not can be achieved through the study of wildfire, design, and complexity literature, interviews with stakeholders and users, and subject matter experts, taking firefighter training courses, and going to visit the environments historic wildfires have occurred within. The challenges the innovation passes through are not going to be resolved by a single technology, as the challenges as a totality tower too high, are too dense, and are entangled in a snarled web of connections.
Challenges may be explored with a challenge-centric mindset that puts the needs, desires, or wants of the innovator or client secondary to determining how the innovation will positively contribute to the wildfire innovator’s context with a future-focused mindset. What an innovator wants to do, or thinks they should do based on interactions, desire, preference, or vision, does not find the same qualities, characteristics, or possibilities as an innovator who found a pathway through the complexity of the context. The unique pathway is the primary basis for bringing an innovation into being. The answers lie in the thicket so dense that it blocks the afternoon sun.
The resultant understandings become the basis of design in wildfire innovation, and not what an innovator wants to create, what the user finds desirable or preferable, and what might generate the most revenue. What it is that the innovator designs should find its basis in their unique experience of chasing the openings they create and the light that springs forth from them. The ideal innovator operating in the context of wildland fire bases their design on the light passed through the small spaces that their emerging understanding opened. It is a basis for design.
Chapter 3: A Conclusion for Innovators
The above detailed a path for defining what innovation should be designed based on a disordered weaving of light through the issues that were addressed here. The openings made by spreading vegetation apart are those the innovation will pass through and become aligned with that part of the context. The innovation will move through spaces exuding light and those that presently remain dark. Both the light and darkness need to be engaged with in pursuit of understanding the world of context. Prioritizing a vision without an understanding of context is to move through it with a chainsaw, instead of delicately and thoughtfully finding the spots prone to opening that either remain dark or, more commonly, let light shine through. The light shows the passages the innovation must pass through to act beneficially and respectfully within the context, with multiple possibilities. Alternatively, those who cut through the thickets with chainsaws bypass the challenges of the world of wildfire. Soon, the brush and trees grow back, and the issues are once again in plain sight, if one cares to retrace their steps and see what they missed.
To innovators, a central question is, “Should I design this?” A question that becomes intelligible through the following:
What future will my innovation create?
In what way will my invention be differentiated from existing tested technologies?
How far into the future is my innovation concerned with, and in what ways?
Will the landscapes my innovations operate in tend to create more or less risk in the future?
How can my innovation be used to create less long-term risk while managing short-term risk?
What is my innovation’s relationship with the risk in the present?
How will my innovation be used, and who are the users and stakeholders that will be affected by my invention, and at what time intervals?
What problem does my innovation solve, how does it solve it, and for how long?
What other problems could it solve?
What problems, paradoxes, quandaries, and uncertainties does it address?
Is the design of my innovation and what it makes possible and impossible place it more towards the extreme suppression end or the extreme fire use end?
If the answer was “in the middle,” is that a function of financial or technological constraints, or an intentional design choice?
If the answer was “in the middle,” how does it meet both sets of requirements?
How will my innovation be integrated into the relational context of the wildfire system?
How will it complement other equipment and tactics?
On the topic of integration, what qualifications will it need, what safety standards will it meet, what other resources will it need to function, and will it need resources committed to it?
Suppose the innovation was arrived at by bypassing, pushing, or cutting through the entangled and messy context that is wildfire. In that case, it is critical that innovators return to the center of the entanglement and begin spreading some branches apart to see where the light appears to understand the nonlinear path their innovation takes through the thicket. This path defines the issues the innovation touches, and as such, its use in the field.
The ideal innovator explores the wildfire context first to determine how their tentative strategy fits within the wildfire context, including what challenges it meets, what strategies and tactics it supports, and what paradoxes it tries to resolve, a small part of. It is through engaging with the context of wildfire that true innovation can occur, not by circumventing it based on preferable innovative wildfire management strategies. For fire use innovations, including fire adaptation, modeling, especially modeling that defines resource benefit, wildfire risk management, and containment considerations during prescribed fires and active wildfires, would be supportive. In regard to fire adaptation, transdisciplinary research to support outreach interactions would be valuable.
Innovation may begin in a garage or on a desk. Still, it truly occurs when something new is introduced to the wildfire environment, including the resources within it that fight fire or manage it on a prescribed fire for resource benefit. For these reasons, an understanding of context should prevail with the appearance of a possible technological strategy for interacting with fire. Understanding the role of an innovation in its true context with a focus on what strategy it supports, how it can be used, its relationship with paradoxes, uncertainties, risk, and futures in wildfire. Also, it is vital to have the clearest and most flexible image possible of how the innovation will interact with and support proven tactics and resources. The degree to which context is understood and embraced defines the mark the innovation will leave upon the world, whether it be positive, negative, or entirely unnoticed.
Sincerely,
Gregory Vigneaux, M.S.
For Fire
References
Li, S., Baijnath-Rodino, J. A., York, R. A., Quinn-Davidson, L. N., & Banerjee, T. (2025). Fire Ecology, 21(3). doi:doi.org/10.1186/s42408-024-00342-3
Morin, E. (1992). Toward a study of humankind: The nature of nature (Vol. 1). (J.L. Roland Belanger, Trans.) New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Upper South Platte Partnership. (2024). Timeline of watershed and major fire events in Colorado. Retrieved from https://uppersouthplattepartnership.org/timeline/#:~:text=Lower%20North%20Fork%20Fire%20burned,lost%20and%20three%20people%20died.