Stopping Fires Early??

California & Hawaii Hotlist Questions and Discussion
#64

Just speculating like you, and speaking for what I have observed in forests west of I-5 and north of the Mendocino-Trinity border, I would say that -modern equipment and logistical systems far outweigh any alleged lack of aggressiveness compared to the past. We are much more efficient at early attack on fires.

And fewer stops, if statistically true are due to -

  • Ground fuels are denser and different today i.e cheatgrass
  • Many stands are overstocked when it comes to surviving fire
  • More people equals more fire starts and more stuff in the way
  • Climate change and current droughts are key contributors
  • Sometimes it doesnā€™t seem like we burn up fewer people.
1 Like
#65

Your speculation suggest they did not care in the ā€œolden daysā€. Fighting fire aggressively providing for safety first started in the late '50s. Which by a younger generation may seem like the olden days, to others they are the good 'o days. There have been fires that burned the way they are burning today but seems like everyone the press talks to ā€œhas never seen fires burn like they are today.ā€ Well, now they have seen them burn like they are and next year there will be someone quoted as saying, ā€œI have never seen it burn like this.ā€ Good read on the beginnings of the 10 Standard Fire Fighting Orders: 1957 Rough Draft of the 10s

1 Like
#66

What then? What do they do with that other 5%. Staffing a fire station 24 hours a day seems efficient enough. Running those same people 24 hours long on an active fire line and supposing they are actively physically productive for those 24 hours is a bit naive or at least is admitting that those people are taking extended rest breaks on the line. When is the best time to rest? When the fire lays down at night of course. The radio traffic falls amazingly quiet between 0100 and 0500. I have even been rebuked for too much traffic on tac during those hours. Then to give those people 24 hours off to recover must keep their circadian rhythm reeling. Of course the planning section must love only 1 shift plan a day. Sorry, for the cynicism. My weak point, I just do not know how to ask tough questions in kinder gentler manner.

#67

I certainly was not there in the 50s but my grandfather was and he told us about it. Certainly they were starting to take a look at how safety could be improved but the element of risk was more accepted then. Things like dozers with no ROPS, there is a famous training film showing fighting fire in the LA basin with no ROPS in all kinds of brush like it was nothing. Hard hats optional in some quarters, I am sure some other bosses would not have put up with that but not universal like today. Hearing protection not even thought of.

1 Like
#68

10 acres and less 95%, is the departmentā€™s goal if you will, not a hard policy. trust me the ones that get bigger than that, we tried our a$$ off to keep small. Iā€™ve spent more nights on fires than I can count banging line through the night with no sleep. Now yes 2 weeks into a large fire, maybe not so much:grin:

2 Likes
#69

What did you say? I did not hear that. I agree with you that as a whole we are more risk averse today then when I started. Green Levis, khaki long sleeved shirt, aluminum hard hat, 8" topped boots, a bandana and a good pair of gloves (that I provided) was the uniform of the day. So, today with all the PPE, improved communications, rules and regulations, technology, as well as agreement by management that another bush, tree, or house is not worth a human life are we more risk averse? Is it the law? Is the fear of a criminally negligent manslaughter charge for recklessly endangering a life holding us back . We stray but one could make the argument this has a bit to do with stopping Fires Early. Or hit 'em hard and keep 'em small.

#70

I trust you guy. Not sure it was working my ā€¦ off or the chewing that did it. Now it seems so important to pass on the information before it is lost and someone has to learn it all over again, the hard way.

#71

To triggerpoint letting some fires burn. I agree fuel reduction is one of the ways to control wildfire. So is a good paving job. So is good logging practices. However not every acre can be treated. In fact a vast majority can not be treated. Not always the best idea to let it burn. http://wildfiretoday.com/2012/08/14/wildfire-burns-15-percent-of-lassen-volcanic-national-park/ The decision has to be based on more than just, ā€œIt is a natural event.ā€ There were some seriously scared and upset folks in Old Station that watch this fire burn toward them for days, knowing that it could have been contained with a short squad for 6 days prior to the fire taking off. But what the heck all that barren land is now fire proof for 30 to 50 years. Of course the trees wonā€™t be back for 150 to 200 years. Not many visitors want to stop and look at it.

1 Like
#72

Good video to watch. We should learn from our past.
https://youtu.be/cvu1sFmsADg

1 Like
#73

I absolutely agree with you its not always the best idea to let it burn, now we can put that behind us. I also agree on your other points to control wildfire (logging etc) and as stated no one answer is gonna fix this. I still disagree (which is simply an opinion of mine), I believe that fuel reduction is the one greatest single factor, that if reduced on our terms WILL slow these fires and reduce the number of devastating ones. Agreed not every acre can be treated, we can put that behind us as wellā€¦ however I disagree on the vast majorityā€¦ with that said can you do it now, no. There would have to be a cultural shift and push from the firefighting community educating your communities and changing laws in the name of saving lives, property and irreplaceable resources, and most of all politicians backing that idea so things can change. I truly feel If you guys could once again see 8 million acres in a years time of your outskirts, comm towers, powerline easements, historic cabins and WUI burned and managed on days where the humidity is higher, ERCā€™s lower, temps lower, drought indexes lower, winds are in your favor and topography can be used to your benefit I think your minds would change and be the one pivotal change that would make the greatest difference in the first post. And I fully feel if backed by politicians, community and your own firefighters your state could have the best largest and most experienced prescribed fire team in the world, and the difference would be worth the cost. Will you lose some, absolutely. Is it the only answer absolutely not, but the fact will always remain good fires prevent bad fires, being proactive is better than being stuck reactive, and remembering we are all on the same team trying to accomplish the same ultimate goal, all having different ideas of how to get there are all important to keep in focus. There are a lot of other good points/ideas/info here and I enjoy this discussion but my posts are way to long.

2 Likes
#74

Good video thanks for sharing. I agree the past repeats itself especially in wildfire regimes, and the best predictor of the future is the past. We have to be proactive- the proper clearances around structures is huge in determining how many structures lost, another key factor we have found here in the southeast is having good managed fire lines/dozer lines/roads trails in the right places around important assets/areas to burn off of and backfire from.

1 Like
#75

Article in firehouse today on this exact subjectā€¦ Among top changes requested EPA changes for prescribed fire smoke, Different dollars for suppression vs prevention (my whole deal on pro active vs reactive), proactive landscaping, fire adaptive communities and moreā€¦ https://www.firehouse.com/prevention-investigation/community-risk-reduction/article/12387282/a-call-to-action-to-stop-wildfires-firefighter-education?utm_source=FH+Newsday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CPS180815020&o_eid=4003B9598489B0X&rdx.ident[pull]=omeda|4003B9598489B0X
I hope the link works.

1 Like
#76

I wanted the chime in here regarding an important issue that is confusing to many, specifically California wildfires and the difference between chaparral (the stateā€™s most extensive ecosystem) and forests. The issue specifically relates to some of the comments in this thread.

Whenever wildfires have been discussed, forests are consistently referenced as if they represent the main problem. The same is true in the less than helpful commentary from the Trump administration. The problem with this perspective is twofold:

  1. Sixteen of the 17 most devastating wildfires in California (as per Cal Fireā€™s list) had nothing to do with forests. A map of these fires is available here:
    http://www.californiachaparral.org/mythofdeadtrees.html

  2. The management of forests is radically different than the management of chaparral.

First, the devastating wildfire misconception.
I have been continuously puzzled as to why many members of the California state legislature continue to talk about wildfires in forests with dead trees when all of the wildfires that have killed the most people and destroyed the most homes are 100 miles or more away from such forests. It would seem the legislature would consider remedies that would impact the most people. While forests on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada have certainly missed several fire cycles and some are in need of thinning and prescribed burns (especially near communities), such actions will do nothing to protect those most threatened.

Second, the management difference between forests and chaparral.
Because few properly recognize the difference between chaparral (native shrublands) and forest, the two are often conflated. This this unfortunately facilitated by the names of the largest chaparral stands in the state: Cleveland, San Bernardino, Angeles, and Los Padres National Forests).

For example, I often read commentary blaming the Thomas Fire on clogged forests and dead trees and how prescribed burns are needed to prevent such a thing from happening again. Since the Thomas Fire did not involve forested landscapes, but rather mostly weedy grasslands/grazing land, chaparral, sage scrub and a few oak woodlands, forest management techniques are inappropriate.

The fact of the matter is that most landscapes in southern and central California (as per USFS fire scientists) are suffering from too much fire rather than not enough. Reducing shrub cover in these landscapes will only speed the process of habitat destruction through type conversion, creating more flammable landscapes as native shrubs are replaced by weedy grasslands. Due to climate change it is predicted that most of our native shrublands in southern and central California will disappear by the end of this century. We canā€™t afford to speed up the process by adding more fire to these fragile ecosystems.

Secondly, prescribed burns and large vegetation treatments are not effective in preventing or stopping the kinds of devastating, wind-driven fires that cause the most damage. I sent a letter to Governor Brown regarding this along with 12 recommendations on how to address fire risk. The letter is available here:
http://www.californiachaparral.org/images/Gov_Brown_2017_Wildfires_V2_Final.pdf

12 Likes
#77

Thanks for sharing this. Interesting to read.

#78

I read the article, and here is a quote from itā€¦

Apparently a mystery to folks like Secretary Zinke, shrubs and trees grow. Growth is natural. In many situations, dense habitats are necessary for biodiversity. When these habitats catch fire, they burn. Fire is hot. In crown fire ecosystems like chaparral and lodgepole pine forests, everything is gets incinerated. Thatā€™s the natural pattern. The problem is that weā€™ve inserted ourselves in flammable habitats and still do not address the main reason homes ignite - by embers that can travel a mile or more from the fire front.

I think this is very well intentioned, and definitely clarifies the dead tree vs what the majority of your fires are composed of argument of which I was unaware of, and which I agree. For us here in the south it is palmetto (fuel model that burns nearly identical to chaparal in 30% humidity) and cow pastures and cured marshes etc. But it goes on to prove still exactly my philosophy through this entire topicā€¦ they are crown fire ecosystems that require natural fire regimes according to the above, when those fire regimes are neglected (biomass accumulates to dangerous levels) and or occur on your worst fire weather days they become catostrophic to the communities they surround and to the people trying to stop them or get out of their wayā€¦ so please prescribe fire 8 million acres of your chapparal, grass, lodgepole pine, dead stands or whatever biomass (insert here) has accumulated to unsafe levels around your communities/cultural resources and or infrastructure on days that dont have critical winds, dont carry embers into the direction of neighborhoods, have lower ERCā€™s, higher humidities etc etc basically on your terms. Absolutely embers are the leading cause for homes to igniteā€¦ In my experience it has always been much easier to monitor embers showering down on a neighborhood from a fire that didnt have an over accumulation of biomass, than the same neighborhood being hit by a (over accumulation of biomass) fire making its own weather, insane area ignition and making it unsafe to even stay and monitor for embersā€¦ I have seen both, and most of you have as well Iam sure, and that in my opinion should be the focus on addressing your secretary in respectful education and not in putting them down for not seeing things as you do like the first sentence of that quote above. Thanks for sharing.

1 Like
#79

The first link you gave makes a flawed statement because the tree mortality study is specific to one species of tree and that is pine.

#80

Many would think he gave Zinke much more respect than he deserves.

2 Likes
#81

Not sure what link you are referring to. If it is the stateā€™s Tree Mortality Viewer map, the data includes estimates of trees per acre and numbers of trees affected, tree species affected, damage type, and damage causing agents when available.

So no, it is not specific to one species of pine.

2 Likes
#82

Thanks for your feedback. Iā€™m not familiar with the palmetto systems so it interesting to hear more about those. Some USFS colleagues of mine have worked some fires in that system and they have also said the flammability characteristics are also similar to chaparral.

Regarding crown fire regime ecosystems. The critical issue about when a fire arrives is the time interval. There must be enough time for crown fire ecosystems to properly recover from the last fire in order to recover from the next. For chaparral, any fire returning less than 30 years can begin the process of type conversion, whereby native shrubs are replaced by non-native weeds and grasses. The process can be a gradual one or can actually happen right away if the burn occurs during the wrong season, which is when prescribed burns occur - in the cool, still moist season. We are not sure what happens, but the moisture in the soil may turn to steam, killing the resident native seed bank.

The natural fire return interval for California chaparral is 30-150 years or more.

For lodgepole pine forests, depending on elevation, you are looking at a natural fire return interval between 135-185 years for low elevations, 280-310 years for high.

Granted, the older the plant community is, generally the greater the biomass build up becomes. However, a high biomass level is necessary to create the high-intensity heat these systems need to properly scarify fire-cued seeds and to eliminate any nasty non-natives that may have invaded.

3 Likes