Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

FARO’S CALAMITY – Shortly after it was built, Faro was levelled by a forest fire in 1969 (above). Whitehorse city council was warned Thursday that suppression efforts against a Fort McMurray-type blaze in the Yukon capital would be fruitless. Inset Dave Loekes

Fire risk to city can’t be overstated: report

Whitehorse is sitting on the edge of calamity, says an assessment of the threat wildfires pose to the city.

By Chuck Tobin on April 24, 2020

Whitehorse is sitting on the edge of calamity, says an assessment of the threat wildfires pose to the city.

The assessment commissioned by the city was presented to city council Thursday at a noon-hour meeting by consultants with a background in wildfires and forest management.

“The upshot: Whitehorse has all the preconditions of calamity,” says the report prepared by Dave Loeks of TransNorthern Consulting and Al Beaver of Wildfire Risk Management.

Loeks told council the forest fuel conditions that exist around the city are quite similar to the conditions that existed in Fort McMurray, Alta., before the horrific wildfire of 2016 that burned through the community and destroyed upwards of 2,500 homes.

Virtually every subdivision in the city is surrounded by boreal forest dominated by conifer trees that are a wildfire’s favourite fuel, he pointed out.

Al Beaver, a wildfire specialist who worked in the Yukon, told council if a fire gets rolling in a conifer forest like it did in Fort McMurray, there’s nothing to do but get out of the way.

Today’s fire suppression capabilities, and anything in the foreseeable future, could not stop a wildfire of the intensity that ripped through Fort McMurray, Beaver said.

The assessment prepared by Loeks, Beaver and a couple of other consultants was commissioned by city council last spring to get a better understanding of what needs to be done to reduce the threat of wildfires to the city.

Council was told Thursday the risk assessment is the first step, to be followed up in the coming weeks and months with a risk reduction strategy and a plan to implement the strategy.

Coun. Dan Boyd said he was expecting to see an analysis of how to reduce the threat, not just a summary of the risk.

Mélodie Simard, the city’s manager of planning and sustainability, told council the assessment presented yesterday was more of an introduction to the work by Loeks and his team.

There will be another meeting soon to look at the options for reducing the risk and implementing the plan, she said.

Simard said they continue to work in partnership with the Yukon government to determine roles and responsibilities when it comes to risk reduction, but the city does have a major part to play as the land owner and regulator of land use in the city.

The city is also developing evacuation plans for each subdivision that should be ready for distribution within a couple of months, she told city council.

Loeks said if the highway right-of-way leading out of Fort McMurray was not as wide as it was – and cleared of forest fuels – there would have been many people killed as they drove through the fire to escape.

As it was, of the 88,000 who fled, two died in traffic-related accidents, and it was only by luck that more weren’t killed by the fire, he pointed out.

While the risk assessment presented Thursday did not include a risk reduction strategy, a report prepared by Loeks for the Yukon Development Corp. (YDC) last year did.

Loeks was retained by the YDC to look at how fuel reduction around Whitehorse could support a local industry to heat with wood, or a biomass industry.

The document delivered last spring said the cost of an extensive, and much-needed fuel reduction effort, could be paid for by using the wood for heating, but it would need the city and the Yukon government to become anchor customers.

Just as Thursday’s report to city council, Loeks’ 40-page assessment delivered to the development corporation says Whitehorse is currently under a serious threat from wildfires.

“It is generally understood that Whitehorse is positioned at the end of a forest fire blowtorch created by topography, prevailing winds, and abundant forest fuels,” says the introduction to the document.

“The fate of Fort McMurray, AB, and recently, Paradise, CA (Calif.) as a result of forest fire is not just possible here, but in time, probable. It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of this risk.... Whitehorse is no less vulnerable than these two examples.”

The document says there is a need for the city to increase its FireSmarting efforts substantially to reduce the risk.

It includes a map of where the FireSmarting should occur over 10 years at a cost of $30 million if done by hand and $18 million if done by machine.

Loeks told council that over the last 20 years, Yukoners have become much more aware of the value of FireSmarting their communities, and more accepting of the related costs.

Beaver reminded council of recent fires of note, including the 1969 inferno that burned Faro, the 1990 fire near Old Crow that forced evacuation of the community because of smoke, and the 1998 Fox Lake fire.

He showed a map of the vulnerable areas in and around the city, and there are many, particularly in the south end because of the prevailing winds coming from the south.

A fire can grow to beyond suppression capabilities in a matter of 10 to 30 minutes, which makes for a compressed evacuation, he said.

Beaver said if a fire got rolling in those areas, “the only thing you can do is get out of the way.”

Wildfires can grow at an enormous rate, sending out burning embers 500 metres to a kilometre ahead of the main body, he said.

Beaver said the Fox Lake fire travelled 18 kilometres (almost 12 miles) in five hours, or more than three kilometres an hour.

“It was something to behold,” he said.

Comments (19)

Up 5 Down 1

Vague Memory on Apr 29, 2020 at 7:26 pm

Could you ask Al Beaver which of the wildfires he decided not to fight because there was no threat to life or property. This started early in the season and they ended up blowing the whole fire budget plus as the fire went from it's starting point (Wheaton valley) clean to Carmacks. This was not a good call.

Up 9 Down 9

Juniper Jackson on Apr 28, 2020 at 2:18 pm

Fire risk can't be overstated? I think it can. And, none of this expensive rhetoric is going to save us if a "WILD" fire got started around Whitehorse. Yes, got started..we have a lot of fire bugs in Whitehorse.

Up 13 Down 1

Guncache on Apr 27, 2020 at 6:27 pm

This is nothing new. I lived in Hillcrest in the early 60's. Around the perimeter of Hillcrest there was a fire break. When the military left the fire break grew back in. Anyone who has lived here for any length of time knows we live in a fire zone. All governments have known of this for decades but have failed to act.
Old news people.

Up 28 Down 4

Different-Firesmart on Apr 27, 2020 at 11:07 am

We need to stop waiting for government to reduce our risk. Yes, they play a huge role in reducing fuels around the populated areas, but FireSmart is about COMMUNITY prevention. I will firesmart my property, you firesmart your property and TOGETHER we will make our community safer.

Up 26 Down 4

marylaker on Apr 27, 2020 at 11:05 am

I do not want the spectre / promise (take your pick) of a biomass industry (chopping down and burning forests for energy), influencing what we do to our forests in terms of making Yukon human communities safer. Is biomass a good idea in the first place? It seems like a very sad way to treat our forests. I am afraid that we will end up chopping down forests to export trees to be burned for fuel as is happening in BC right now. I watched Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans, and apparently BC is sending trees to Germany to be chipped and burned. That strikes me as 'wrong'.

I do not feel comfortable that Dave Loeks has the contract to help assess a biomass industry in the Yukon, while also having the contract to decide how to reduce fire risk. It is too much of a conflict of interest. The one could feed into the other eventually, but deciding the best practise for reducing fire risk should first of all be done independently of thoughts of supporting a biomass industry.

Not everyone agrees that opening the Yukon to burning trees on a mass scale to replace oil and hydro energy is a good idea and this hand holding between the two subjects by having the same person doing both studies makes me very uncomfortable. We don't want it to become a done deal before the negatives of a biomass industry are thoroughly examined.

Up 22 Down 6

We're Not Ft.Mac on Apr 27, 2020 at 2:58 am

People are forgetting three important facts about the Ft. Mac fire.

1. It was started by humans and the arson investigation was buried, which leads one to suspect political involvement by a government that openly wanted to shut down Ft.Mac.

2. That same government had cancelled the water bomber contracts just before the tinder-dry Spring fire season. Water bombers which could have killed or contained the initial fire were not available.

3. The fire suppression crew that was sent to contain the initial fire were stood down at the end of their shift, and nobody else took over. By the next day the fire was out of control, and there was no fleet of water bombers to fight it.

The Ft.Mac fire got out of control because of government incompetence, malfeasance, or both. So, unless we elect incompetent governments driven by politically motivated ideologies, who would hobble our fire suppression professionals, then the chances of a Ft.Mac level of disaster here are far less.

Yes, we should reduce the fire hazard around our neighbourhoods. As others have mentioned, controlled burns combined with Fire Smart clearing near houses, is the cost effective way to do that.

Frightening people with unrealistic Ft. Mac conflagration scenarios is irresponsible. Nonetheless, when the government hires consultants to write such scare stories, then we shouldn't be surprised when that's what we get.

Up 20 Down 2

Max Mack on Apr 26, 2020 at 9:26 pm

@wilf

This point of this fire risk "assessment" is to justify the biomass project that Loeks previously consulted on.
The plan is to clearcut huge swaths of forest around Whitehorse. Those clearcuts will have to be monstrous (>1km wide) to have even a remote chance of stopping a rank 5 fire. Anything less than rank 5 can be dealt with by conventional firefighting strategies and tactics.

All of this to feed a biomass burning project. My question is this: where are they going to get trees for burning after they've cleaned out everything around Whitehorse?
Anyone who believes that biomass burning is "green" should watch The Planet of the Humans.

Up 14 Down 8

Juniper Jackson on Apr 26, 2020 at 7:06 pm

Raise our taxes! That will stop the fires.

Up 23 Down 2

Groucho d'North on Apr 26, 2020 at 1:16 pm

So is one to presume that the City has its evacuation planning all completed and is ready to share it with residents?

Up 33 Down 15

Jack on Apr 26, 2020 at 8:19 am

Wildfires near Whitehorse are nothing new except they were just called forest fires before. I guess wildfires is more scary sounding.
Surely we don't need to pay consultants for this?

Up 14 Down 19

Wilf Carter on Apr 25, 2020 at 11:04 pm

I fine this report dead on. When I was studying forestry engineering at UFA I worked in the Peace Country of AB. in 1982 and it was a very dry summer. We had a lot of fires in that area of AB. I was managing a small group rebuilding camp grounds for the summer for AB Government. I helped a get delivery of equipment to fight fires. I watched a fire go across a valley in 4 hours burning everything in it path. We almost lost some fire fighters. It was shocking to watch how quickly a wild fire can move.
In the 1990 I worked as a CAO for one of Yukon municipal Units and learned from YTG fire unit how fires works and was told Whitehorse was a high risk in 1992. We tried to talk to the city but no one would listen. I was interested in how wild fires worked and have studied dendrology which is a study of trees in engineering and learn how they are dangerous.
Finally some one is doing something about this dangerous problem. Instead of claiming climate change EMG which is a waste of time because there is no evidence to back why have one in COW. We do have a wild fire EMG instead. Wild fires are not caused by climate change as Trudeau, his internment minister and our MP Larry Bagnell supports. Our forest in the Yukon is an old growth forest and needs to be managed properly to reduce fires.

Up 35 Down 5

Olav on Apr 25, 2020 at 7:16 pm

There will be lots of unemployed folks shortly.
Might be a good project to get done while these folks are on CERB or EI or
whatever program the Lib’s come up with next.

Maybe get some of the YG folks that are “working from home” to pitch in.
No shortage of manpower now!

Up 40 Down 5

BB on Apr 25, 2020 at 3:37 pm

How much did they get paid to tell us we live surrounded by a boreal forest and that 'the risk can't be overstated'?

Up 26 Down 7

doug on Apr 25, 2020 at 1:28 pm

Fire smart is only a make work project. It only opens up the bush to help a fire draw air into the fire easier than before fire smart, meaning the fire will travel on the ground rather than in the canopy where thicker bush causes a fire to burn as it searches for oxygen. The fire smart program as it is now does not remove any over burden on the ground, leaving a thick layer of dried needles, leaves, fallen branches and dried moss as a tinder like fuel.
The only way to protect Whitehorse and surrounding areas is to do late fall controlled burns where the greatest threat to wild fire exists. They only need to burn small areas each year, after producing a grid to identify the areas of greatest threat, over the next 20 years or 30 years to eventually minimize the threat and bring back new growth and minimize any eye sore a forest fire leaves. Once the entire old growth area is burned, the threat to Whitehorse and surrounding areas is minimized for the next 80 to 100 years.
Logging the threat away is not good practice as the boreal forest we have needs fire to reseed and produce proper nutrient to the ground to allow the forest to grow back in a timely healthy fashion . FIRE SMART - The way its done right now, will not prevent a major forest fire it only changes the type of fire we will have.

Up 9 Down 27

Matthew on Apr 24, 2020 at 10:00 pm

Easy solution.. enable our weather modification act and produce rainfall! http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-5/page-1.html#h-3

Up 22 Down 20

Iggy Norramus on Apr 24, 2020 at 8:27 pm

I thought firesmart was the social distance equivalence for trees - Slowing the spread of fire until the firefighters arrive... WTF! Must be a bunch of liberal ideologues on City Council...

Up 42 Down 8

Max Mack on Apr 24, 2020 at 7:07 pm

"Dave Loeks of TransNorthern Consulting" predicting a calamity. No surprise there. Especially when you read this:

"Loeks was retained by the YDC to look at how fuel reduction around Whitehorse could support a local industry to heat with wood, or a biomass industry."
Watch for a lot of money greasing a lot of hands.

Up 47 Down 0

Guncache on Apr 24, 2020 at 6:10 pm

How many years has this been discussed at the coffee shops? As a youngster in the 60's I lived in Hillcrest. At the outer perimeter of houses there was a cleared area, a fire break. Over the years this has grown back up. Nothing will be done until it's to late

Up 33 Down 13

One One-Lesser-Voice on Apr 24, 2020 at 5:40 pm

These consultants speak the truth.
It's obvious that we should partner with the territorial and federal government for funding to help with firesmart and related programs.

People usually consider property loss but if a wildfire getting rolling there could be loss of life.
I hope council takes this seriously.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.