Colorado Smoke Management Program
Photo Gallery
Nov. 2011 note: This page
will vanish in early 2012. We need to manage our workload and this
part of the smoke website wasn't getting many visitors. Meanwhile
new reports are not being posted.
The linked .pdfs listed below are excerpts from the
annotated photos we send back to permittees after most burns we attend. The
files are 200-900 kB and may download slowly. For each burn a
conditions permitting category and report focus are listed, but other subjects
are also addressed less intensively.
 |
|
Smoke from
piles southwest of Grand Junction was monitored intensively
because the downwind airshed is so sensitive; Official instrument data suggest Grand Junction
is on the verge of becoming
designated as bein in non-attainment for particulates. The
paired views show how different smoke can look from a
distance versus from a burn. |
spring 2011
Button Rock, Longmont Fire Department, 1b standard.
Challenges of excessively small piles.
Cache la Poudre, Canyon Lakes RD, 1b standard piles and
broadcast tbd. Fuels considerations for future large
broadcast burn.
Delaney Butte, CSFS Steamboat Springs on CDoW land, 2c rural
standard. Quandary of remote burns, and planning that reflects
understanding of site air flow patterns.
Glacier View HOA, 5c non-standard. Long-standing
and trash-free community slash piles on windy sites.
Green Ridge, Sulphur RD, 1c standard. Very well-built
piles, and more musing about chunking.
Perry Park,
Larkspur Fire Department, 1c, 3c and 4c. New
permittee agency managing burning of both collection site and
built-in-place piles in a large subdivision.
Ranch A, 5c non-standard. Burning of the largest
pile APCD staff have or are likely ever to see.
Ranch B, 4b non-standard. Challenges of
excessively short piles.
Running Deer, Fort Collins Natural Areas, 1c sensitive standard.
Small burn with light fuel in an urban setting
Spiranthes, Fort Collins Natural Areas, 1c sensitive
standard. Proposed burn in cattails, and a few
thoughts about agricultural open burning.
Wolf Creek
Ski Area, 3c standard. New permittee with a pile that can be
improved
fall 2010
Aspen, two private ski resorts burn small numbers of 1b
and 1c piles visible from downtown.
Arsenal
Broadcast, USFWS, 1c sensitive. Light and variable
wind; densely urban setting.
CFLRP, Ouray and Norwood Ranger Districts, future
permits. Huge 10-year restoration project that poses
large-scale smoke challenges, including fuel variability.
Crystal Lakes HOA, 5c. Large, well-managed
community slash pile on a small site.
Doe Canyon, Dolores Ranger District, 3a rural.
Very straightforward pine underburn.
Fetters, South Metro Fire Department, 1c
sensitive non-standard. Photos from the burn boss of
an APCD experiment with burning below 7,000' in winter in
metro Denver.
Hahn's Peak / Bears Ears District projects, 2c piles and
2c rural broadcast projects in rural Routt County, including
thinning on a north aspect
Hayden Creek, Bayfield Ranger District, 3c sensitive.
Smoke and power lines.
Kim
Area. Cattle ranchers burning pushed-over juniper
trees.
Las Colonias, Grand Junction Fire Department, 5c.
Building cleaner tamarisk piles then burning them in
downtown Grand Junction's challenging airshed.
November*, Conejos Ranger District, 3b rural.
Adaptive management in mixed conifer restoration, and an
attempted experiment with fair dispersion.
Pine Mountain, Grand Valley Ranger District, 3a rural.
Complex topographic influences on smoke.
Powderhorn, Gunnison BLM, 3c and 2b rural.
Planning for aerial ignition.
Private land A, clean 3c logging piles
Range 143*, Fort Carson, 1b sensitive. Prescribed
fire driven by military training on the same land.
Summit Cove, Dillon Ranger District, a future project
burning machine piles directly above a high-density
subdivision
* Broadcast days where at least
50% of standard condition acres for the risk category were
burned.
Expecting or wanting APCD staff to attend your burn or
visit the site with you beforehand? We've written
out
what you can expect.
The intents of our field time include mutual learning, checking
compliance with permit conditions, and developing ideas for improvements
to the smoke management program. What we photograph and
subsequently describe reflects these intents. Somewhat coincidentally but featured in some excerpts, the photos may also show
- a variety of fuels, weather, and other influences
on smoke
- good, and occasionally mediocre, practices in
smoke management
- some of the things smoke can do, expected and
otherwise
We post excerpted reports as one more
way to learn about smoke. Use them to become a yet better burner. And
please tell us what you see in them that we
may have missed or that you otherwise find interesting.
What these photos are not:
- They are not smoke monitoring reports. To
monitor smoke one must be well off-site. Our field work focuses as
much on interacting with the people present at a burn as on observing smoke.
The burn boss monitors smoke for use in real-time decisionmaking.
We don't. The photographs that are of smoke often reflect a specific curiosity.
- They aren't a complete list. For almost as
many
reasons as omissions, there are no photos here for a quarter to a
third
of our site visits. Also,
they are from only the most recent couple seasons. We have
many old ones; If you're interested in a particular topic,
contact us.
- None is the full-length version of a report. The
website isn't big enough for all the photos.
- They aren't dirty laundry. Reports
are part of our on-going dialog with every permittee. The full
text may include speculations, parts of unfinished
conversations, suggestions for improvements in smoke management, operational glitches,
etc. All are omitted here - and will be when your report
is posted.
- Finally, they aren't infallibly
accurate. We try to check photo captions, but errors creep through.
All of the photos (and text) are in the public domain.
They may be copied and re-used freely. If you need a
higher-resolution .jpg,
contact us. |