A question about the California wildfires: I know a lot of areas have

[hedgehog]

built up fuel because for years we didn't understand that an occasional fire is part of the natural life cycle of many forests. The flip side of a well intended policy of preventing all fires is that now the fires burn so hot that everything is destroyed. I haven't heard of a way to remove the fuel except for a labor intensive clearing of all the accumulated brush. Are the forests that are burning now forests that have accumulated fuel or are they forests that burn periodically and are burning now because of the dry weather?

[sandnsea]

1. Additional consideration

The replants are like matchstick forests. They plant them so close together that a little drought and a little lightening, and they're gone. They get so hot, that they can burn into natural forests and torch them too.

I don't know about every forest now, but the Biscuit Fire in Oregon, parts of it were a nice low burn and other parts were nuke zones. It just depends.

[hedgehog]

2. See, now that's exactly the info I'm looking for. My understanding

is that Western forests (I don't know about Eastern forests) need to burn periodically. Of course, if you've built smack dab in the middle of the forest without taking proper precautions, you're going to want every fire stopped. It's impossible to tell what's happening from the television reporting.

[Cleita]

3. The fires are hotter, bigger and more frequent due to global warming

so the "cleansing fires" models that actually help regrowth aren't the same anymore. I'm interested in the scientists weighing in on this.

[NYC_SKP]

4. The accumulation of litter is a natural event, as are wildfires....

...any effort to remove the litter (accumulated biota) would be an impossibly huge task, who's doing it and where does it go?

These areas are VAST.

The disruption to the ecosystem by the effort would be legendary.

They would never get these projects approved, too costly and environmentally unsound.

Fires can start and spread even if there's no litter to fuel them, though litter makes them hotter and more likely to spread very quickly.

Etc, etc,...

The dry weather and winds are certainly to blame for the high incident and severity of fires this summer.

Not all fires are fueled by litter, fires can begin in stands of diseased or dead trees and on people's property when they don't maintain them.

There are ongoing efforts to clear litter from a limited number of sites, like in and around Yosemite.

The fires in Southern California that wreak such destruction on homes are destroying homes that many think should never have been built there, just as homes are build in floodplains in the central valley.

That's all I got. Fires are natural, like earthquakes.

[kestrel91316]

5. Here in SoCal a lot of our fires are in chapparal, which is not forest.

The Goleta fire (Gap fire) of last week was in chapparal that hadn't burned in over 50 years. It needs fire to regenerate and stay healthy.

They pretty much let these sorts of fires burn through the brush and just work on defending property, rather than working to put it all out as quickly as possible.

Out in the Big Bear/Lake Arrowhead area, which is a higher elevation, the fires have been in pine forests which have a lot of standing dead trees due to the bark beetle (which goes after trees weakened by drought, which is worse now die to global warming). They (government) typically overseed with a fast-growing annual grass to stabilize soil in hopes of minimizing our infamous mudslides which hit the burned areas when winter rains (usually of biblical proportions) hit.

Some of our fires in rercent years have been so hot they sterilize the soil rather than just burning the seed coats off certain seeds. They do a lot of prescribed burns (under very controlled conditions) in the off season to decrease fuel loads in projected trouble areas.

[hedgehog]

6. It's a problem with no easy solution. The only way I see to get back

into the rhythm of periodic small fires is to allow the big fire to burn through the accumulated fuel. The problem with that is that the fire lingers in the area and kills the larger trees as well as seeds.


Again, I'd like to see more info as to the nature of the fires. Ideally, we'd have small fires going through a lot of these areas every few years. I'm wondering what kind of political pressure develops when we keep seeing shots of homes with just a chimney left standing.

[tabatha]

8. It needs fire to regenerate and stay healthy.

Not correct.

[kestrel91316]

23. Fire is an essential component of our ecosystems here in the SW.

Your opinion notwithstanding.

Are you perhaps homeschooled, lol?

[tabatha]

25. Sarcasm aside, I have attended lectures by scientists

far more knowledgeable than you.

Read this:
http://www.californiachaparral.com/firenature.html

Is fire a good thing for chaparral as many people claim? The answer is no because such a statement is value-laden and overly simplistic.

Fire in the chaparral is a disruptive force leading to the selection of fire survival strategies. Many chaparral plant species depend on some fire cue or post-fire environmental condition for maximal reproductive success. Does this mean the chaparral NEEDS to burn? Not at all.

Try doing a little research. There is also an issue of the Fremontia magazine published earlier this year, that discussed this topic. Find it. read it. absorb it.

[tabatha]

7. California Fires

Here is a book (if you can afford the price) that will answer a lot of questions:
http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Californias-Ecosystems-Neil-Sugihara/dp/0520246055/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215986252&sr=8-23

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uZyethdLL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

However, it has recently been concluded that frequent fires are not required for chaparral - in fact frequent fires are harmful - many vegetation types take a long time to recover properly. That means they take a long time to grow to a point where they can reproduce again.

The problem is the change in weather - where rain, rain, rain (excessive growth) is followed by dry, dry, dry (excessive dryness that is very flammable).

[hedgehog]

9. I'll have to think about that - it's a pricey book, I think the key point is

in the title, not Californian Ecosystem but California Ecosystems! We Easterners tend to forget that California is more than LA!


Again it shows that too little information is often times bad information! We know there are a bunch of fires, but we have no idea if any one fire is bad or good!

[tabatha]

11. Here is an article that reflects some of the latest thinking.

http://cblog.savethechaparral.org/index.php?/archives/2007/10.html

[hedgehog]

14. Neat! I suspect the real problem isn't the fires but the fact that

houses have been built in the path of the fires.

It may be another myth, but I heard that Janet Reno's house in Florida supposedly stood up well to hurricanes because it was built to withstand hurricanes rather than turn a quick profit for a developer. My old house here in the Lake Ontario snowbelt is built to take a heavy load of snow on the roof. Walmart put in one of its standard stores and lost the roof to the snow load. My point is that homes have to be built to meet local conditions. Slapping down the same developments coast to coast doesn't work.

[Chovexani]

16. That is the problem in Arizona

Developers building planned communities out in the boondocks where humans have no business and people move out there attracted by the siren call of cheap land. Sprawl is contributing to a lot of these fires in the West, IMO.

The other problem here is the atrocious management of our scarcest resource, water. Why are there so many golf courses in the flippin' desert? :wtf:

[hedgehog]

17. The area of New York where I live turns into second growth forest

given half a chance. Clearly, it wasn't a bunch of fields and pastures when Europeans moved in. We've changed our landscape here, but generally we've reached some sort of accommodation. The worst I've seen is the planting of hundreds of fast growing silver maples in the suburb of Amherst, New York. These trees are not suited for the ground (wetland - Amherst used to be mostly swamp!) and haven't grown very big in 40 some years. An early snow storm that came through in October a few years back (before the leaves fell from the trees) left the place looking like the aftermath of an artillery barrage! I wonder if other tree species would have held up better.

[izquierdista]

10. Take a look south of the border

The difference between Northern Baja and San Diego county is quite telling. To the south, there are sparsely vegetated hills, lots of grasses, a few oaks in the arroyos where water collects and some low shrubs growing out of blackened crowns. The Mexicans, due to limited resources, only call out the fire crews when buildings and populated areas are threatened, and then, their focus is to save buildings and things of value. To the north, where fire crews are on the spot in an instant, there is chapparral on the hillsides that is at least waist high, usually more, with very few grassy areas. Large oak trees proliferate and can be 3 or 4 feet in diameter.

Fires on the U.S. side are intense, with flames tens of feet into the air and progress with the direction of the wind, hopping over any and all firebreaks because of the copious amount of hot cinders they produce. Fires on the Mexican side are much more relaxed, often taking a siesta when the wind dies down, only to start up again the next day off in a different direction as the wind shifts. They cover the ground much more slowly, only flaring up occasionally when they hit a particularly dry bush. If a large tree is in the path of the fire, it often just singes the lower branches and moves on before the whole tree becomes involved.

The best way to experience the difference is to take a drive on Mexican highway 3, through the Tecate border crossing and then along California highway 94 on the San Diego side. California would look a lot different if they adopted the laissez-faire Mexican approach to fire control. I'm not so sure that Californians would be ready for it.

[hedgehog]

12. The problem is getting to there from here. What can be done

about waist high chaparral? Turn the question around, and are the fires on the Mexican side "natural"? Maybe the chaparral should be waist high but is burning now due to global climate change.

[izquierdista]

18. Which side is natural?

The Mexican side is natural, very little changed from the way it has been for hundreds of years. Away from the population centers of Tijuana and Ensenada, there is little man-made change to the environment. In a few valleys, there are crops, orchards and vineyards, but the hills are left alone.

The chapparral has grown up to replace the grasslands, and now regrows after fires, giving rise to cycles of less frequent, more intense fires. Grass has a hard time getting re-established because the chapparral crowds out the grass and gives cover to animals that graze any grasses that do sprout. Also, bare hillsides after a chapparral fire are more prone to mudslides when it rains, since there are no grass roots to hold the soil.

The central coast along 101 is more typical of the way California should look: rolling hills with lots of grass and scattered oaks. Chapparral should only be found in very steep ravines where grass has a difficult time growing. The fire suppression in Southern California has meant the replacement of grasslands with chapparral everywhere that people are afraid of a fire coming up to their house. Ironically, grass fires would do little damage to houses, but chapparral fires will consume all but the most fire resistant houses (i.e. concrete block with a metal roof).

One thing that would help all around is more seeding of mustard after wildfires. As a low annual, it won't build up the fuel load to the point where it will burn like chapparral. It won't compete against the grass as vigorously and will allow grasslands to re-establish. Besides, it looks pretty in the springtime and you can even harvest the seeds to make biodiesel, like they do in Monterey.

[hedgehog]

19. If I read you right, you're saying that the chaparral is the second growth.

My eye was caught by the phrase "central coast". Is it possible that grass is natural in one area and chaparral in the other?

Concrete block or stucco with metal or clay roofs sounds like the way to go in the fire prone areas, but it's not very fashionable. Ironically, metal roofs are becoming popular where I live because they shed snow so easily!

[Hekate]

26. Goleta, where I live, is in the Central Coast. You seem to know the area...

I think most people don't know it from SoCal. The rolling hills and oak landscape are beautiful and what you see as soon as you drive away from what passes for our urban center. The steep, often inaccessible, canyons are where the chaparral really takes root.

We have a Mediterranean climate and many imported plants from there -- I didn't realize what that really meant until I visited Greece and Crete 8 years ago and saw the dry hills and "our" plants everywhere.

It's a coastal desert but with appropriate water usage everything grows. We are fortunate that for 20 years the Board of Supervisors was dominated by a slow-growth majority who restricted the supply of new water meters. That enabled us to stay comfortably within local limitations of water stored in Lake Cachuma.

Sadly, those days are over. There is intense pressure to turn ag lands into housing. However one of the things that saved Goleta from the Gap Fire, aside from the blessed lack of sundowner winds and the courage of the firefighters, was the presence of well-watered avocado and lemon groves acting as a buffer zone between us and the chaparral. My neighbors and I watched as trees on the mountain above us simply exploded in flame, and days later I am still finding the occasional charred leaf in my yard--a reminder that embers could easily have blown under someone's eaves. Almost no one has shake shingle roofs any more -- they are just tinder.

My understanding of California's fire ecology is not profound, but once I realized that certain seeds cannot germinate unless they first pass through fire in the right season I grasped that a lot of California simply evolved to burn. Many plants have resinous sap, which is highly flammable when dried out. We need to adapt ourselves to the realities of where we live -- there's only so far we can push Mother Nature.

Hekate

[tabatha]

13. Some headlines from this article:

http://cblog.savethechaparral.org/index.php?/archives/2007/10.html


Science vs. Myths on Southern California Fire and Chaparral


SAN DIEGO, Calif.– To support accurate media coverage, the Center for Biological Diversity is providing the following basic scientific information relating to fire and chaparral vegetation management in southern California.


Native chaparral was the dominant vegetation burned in the southern California wildfires over the last week. Chaparral is not one plant but rather a diverse community of plants that are unique to California’s Mediterranean climate and is the most widespread natural vegetation from the coast to the mountains. Contrary to common misperceptions, the best available science shows that old growth chaparral is an ecologically rich natural resource, that frequent fire is not necessary to maintain the health of chaparral, and that fire suppression has not produced an unnatural accumulation of chaparral fuel or caused the catastrophic wildfires in southern California.


· Prescribe fire and other fuel treatments in chaparral are not effective for fire safety


Fires occurring under non-extreme weather conditions are fairly easily suppressed, so prescribed fire in chaparral is either likely to be unnecessary under non-extreme conditions, or ineffective under extreme conditions (Keeley et al. 2004). Prescribed fire is also risky because it can escape and become an even more hazardous wildfire (Keeley and Fotheringham 2003).

· Fire suppression has not resulted in an unnatural accumulation of chaparral fuel and catastrophic fire


According to Moritz et al. (2004): “Fire suppression is not an underlying cause of catastrophic wildfires in southern California.” Southern California chaparral is burning more frequently than a century ago, with a higher number of ignitions and a shorter fire return interval than occurred prior to organized fire suppression activities (Keeley et al. 2004; Keeley and Fotheringham 2003). Fire suppression has not effectively excluded fire in southern California chaparral (Keeley and Fotheringham 2003; Keeley and Fotheringham 2001;
Mensing et al. 1999).

· Overly frequent fire actually increases the risk of wildfire and is harmful to chaparral


Overly frequent fire including prescribed fire produces a negative cycle of invasion by highly flammable exotic grasses which in turn results in an increased fire frequency and the related significant threat to public safety, firefighters, property, natural resources, and economic values like water storage and quality.

[hedgehog]

15. What is your synopsis of this article?

I'm reading it to say that prescribed burns in chaparral are unnecessary and counter-productive but also that there are very occasional big fires in chaparral.

[izquierdista]

21. I'm going to have to call BS

On this particular gem of wisdom: "Fire suppression has not resulted in an unnatural accumulation of chaparral fuel and catastrophic fire"

One can see that chaparral near good fire roads is more vigorous than chaparral off in some remote canyon (even though remote is getting harder and harder to find in California). When vigorous fire suppression is facilitated by easy access of equipment, the chaparral grows up to dangerous levels, and it is unnatural (man-made). I would have to vigorously contest the methodology and conclusions in the study that was referenced.

[tabatha]

22. I went to a series of lectures by renowned fire reasearchers.

And their thoughts reflect what is in this article.

Chaparral can be very old and still not fire-prone in the absence of drought.

Your personal, "study" is very limited in comparison to long-time researchers who have accumulated and analyzed data over many years.

I would have to call your study BS.

[azul]

20. Our forest management is iffy at best, and we built too many dumb houses.

We've cut down over 95% of the forests in the west in the past 150 years, and we keep cutting, but do we have the wisdom to replant the biodiversity that sustains life? The warning example is the previous forests on the coasts of North Africa and the Middle East that have been desertified in the past 3,000 years by the activities of man. And it's not coming back anytime soon.

We have allowed the timber and building industries dictate what is replanted for economic reasons ahead of sustainability. And yet this might be ok to plant so much land in certain species of trees if we only didn't have pests and diseases spreading around the globe that we are clueless about and that may simply wipe mono cultures out.

That said, any house built in forrest and chaparral should be fireproof. Just run like hell, don't endanger firemen, and leave the insurance companies out of it.

And why not harvest chaparral locally to generate electicity? It's loaded with energy and grows like crazy.

[BrotherBuzz]

24. Years ago, sections of Mount Tamalpais was set afire during winter months

Controlled burns. I don't know if they still do it, or how successful it was, but they attempted to address a real problem in that area.

Goats are another weapon against fire. I know people in my area that have raised huge herds of goats (thousands!) The goats are rented out to graze and knock down the vegetation. I believe the regional parks around Mount Diablo are using them as well as many east Bay cities. Big business renting goats.