2020 Wildfire Season

[frorider]

Increasingly, the gummint is throwing taxpayer $$ at insurance support for flood and fire, so the argument for prescribed burns and other measures is increasingly easier to make. A new wave of Karens will shout down the Karens bitching about prescribed burn smoke in June ‘during my wedding in the mountains’.

Patrollers close terrain during avy control. The dumbasses complain about and/or ignore the closures but the mission remains in place.

[old goat]

Increasingly, the gummint is throwing taxpayer $$ at insurance support for flood and fire, so the argument for prescribed burns and other measures is increasingly easier to make. A new wave of Karens will shout down the Karens bitching about prescribed burn smoke in June ‘during my wedding in the mountains’.

Patrollers close terrain during avy control. The dumbasses complain about and/or ignore the closures but the mission remains in place.

We're happy to spend money after the fact--FEMA money to help people rebuild for example, and of course the money we spend on fire fighting. We're not so happy to spend money to prevent disasters because the public doesn't see the benefit in concrete personal terms. Just like Covid--eliminating the pandemic response unit to save a few bucks.
If your house burns down and you get a check from FEMA you see govt working for you. If there is no fire because there was a prescribed burn a few years ago the average person doesn't give the govt credit for preventing a fire. They just figure it's the normal state of affairs.

[Meadow Skipper]

Getting public support is getting easier all the time.

Increasingly, the gummint is throwing taxpayer $$ at insurance support for flood and fire, so the argument for prescribed burns and other measures is increasingly easier to make. A new wave of Karens will shout down the Karens bitching about prescribed burn smoke in June ‘during my wedding in the mountains’.

I hope you guys are right.

We're happy to spend money after the fact--FEMA money to help people rebuild for example, and of course the money we spend on fire fighting. We're not so happy to spend money to prevent disasters because the public doesn't see the benefit in concrete personal terms. Just like Covid--eliminating the pandemic response unit to save a few bucks.
If your house burns down and you get a check from FEMA you see govt working for you. If there is no fire because there was a prescribed burn a few years ago the average person doesn't give the govt credit for preventing a fire. They just figure it's the normal state of affairs.

You are right.

[altasnob]

From the article:

"So when the state topped 4 million acres burned earlier this month, setting a record, Wilkin thought, "Wow, we're actually getting into the ballpark of how many acres used to burn in California every year. Historically, somewhere between 4.4 million and 12 million acres used to burn every year."

It wasn't too long ago forestry experts were claiming clear cutting and replanting trees wasn't harmful to the forest, wrongfully assuming forest micro-biology was as simplistic as growing corn. So why do we think prescribed burns, which have much less intensity than natural fires, will satisfy the forests' biological need for large fires? Is this just another attempt of mankind trying (unsuccessfully) to manipulate the natural environment?

We already subsidize rural over urban living and now a city slicker like me is supposed to pony up more money so work from home TGR tech-bros can live out in the woods. I don't blame politicians for being reluctant to spend massive amounts of public money trying to control the forests. The cheapest option for society as a whole is to do nothing, let it burn, not give federal or state aid, and leave the financial burden on the home owners who chose to live in that environment. And I am not a Karen who cares about smoke. I am Karen who thinks there are more important things to spend public tax dollars on.

[Meadow Skipper]

^ Great POV if you don’t care about wide-ranging effects that you refuse to see such as watershed health (ie. Where you get your water, dumbass), smoke and fire effects on agriculture (your food and weed) and public health, outdoor recreation (what are you doing in a skiing forum?), etc. There’s an entire world outside of your self-centered, ignorant, cloistered, office-bound life.

And don’t kid yourself, you are a total Karen.

[neufox47]

We're happy to spend money after the fact--FEMA money to help people rebuild for example, and of course the money we spend on fire fighting. We're not so happy to spend money to prevent disasters because the public doesn't see the benefit in concrete personal terms. Just like Covid--eliminating the pandemic response unit to save a few bucks.
If your house burns down and you get a check from FEMA you see govt working for you. If there is no fire because there was a prescribed burn a few years ago the average person doesn't give the govt credit for preventing a fire. They just figure it's the normal state of affairs.

People would see the impact on insurance. I’m shopping for new houses in the foothills and therefore shopping for insurance. Almost everything is fair plan only and the agents are preparing for a massive pullout of carriers from any wildfire areas. One house I looked at Lloyd’s was the only private insurer who would write it, $20k a year. Fair plan $6k. Currently paying $2k on a similar house.

[altasnob]

^ Great POV if you don’t care about wide-ranging effects that you refuse to see such as watershed health (ie. Where you get your water, dumbass), smoke and fire effects on agriculture (your food and weed) and public health, outdoor recreation (what are you doing in a skiing forum?), etc.

Skiing in the PNW, and most of the Western US, wouldn't exist but for large, catastrophic fires, that run without human intervention. All the nice, gladed, terrain I ski is because of fires. I get excited for fires, like the fire that went over East Peak near Crystal running all the way down to the edge of the in-bounds ski area, naturally clearing the heavily wooded terrain. With less snow each year (so less large, tree clearing avalanches), and less fires, our ski runs are getting choked with trees.

The negative environmental affect of people living in the woods is larger than the environmental effects natural fires have on water, agriculture, climate change, ect.

[bodywhomper]

I think that articles, like the NPR article/story that I posted, are important and need to be echoed to reach a broad audience to get more public interest and support.

People that live and visit Tahoe will eventually be seeing a large prescriptions implemented (mechanical, hand, and prescribed burn) in the 80k ac Tahoe West project. The lead agencies are going through (or completed) the NEPA and CEQA scoping and have actively been planning for several years. The inconvenience, effects on tourism, and potential health issues due to the smoke are a known concern. There's a relatively large 200+k ac treatment (mostly fire) that is occurring by piecemeal in the North Fork of the Yuba River. Funding by the Yuba Water Agency, USFS, and a private investment NGO known as "Blue Forest."

The local water agencies around the state and the state water agency are being leaders on a lot of the prescribed burn and large treatment efforts because high severity wildfires have a huge adverse impact on their resources.

Prescribed fire is not just for the timber forests of CA. It's also a great tool for vegetation management in all non-manicured landscapes in the state, such as grasslands, oak woodlands, chaparral, sage, etc., even (especially?) in the WUI. The experts tell us that all these ecosystems supposedly burned at some level of frequency prior to urbanization/suburbanization. In Orange County, if the WUI adjacent to the Silverado Fire was regularly treated with prescribed fire, many people would be a lot less stressed and perhaps the injured firefighters wouldn't be in the hospital.

I still remember the first prescribed fire that I saw. At wilder ranch SP next to santa cruz, in some grass lands. I was on a casual bike ride from town with a friend. the state had closed off a few trails and were lighting it up while on my ascent. on my descent, the closed trails were open and they were mostly done with the fire. definitely mitigated the hazard and faster and safer than mowing the grassland. Perhaps using goats would have been equally useful there.

That NPR article describes the lack of federal $$ for prescribed burns and hazard mitigation fuel treatment in general. FEMA is a big source of federal $$ for work outside of federally managed lands. They currently have a lot of $$ available and a lot of it is focused on wildfire hazard mitigation. FEMA has a problem. It used to fund prescribed burns for hazard mitigation. In 2008, it developed a new policy that made prescribed burns and fire breaks ineligible for funding under a hazard mitigation grant. However, FEMA funds suppression efforts which include control burns, fire breaks, etc.

I'm still waiting for the uber wealthy WUI areas in socal and the bay area to get hit by the home insurance cancellations. Hopefully, that may result in changes and improvements.... CA Fair Plan recently announced a 15% increase for next year.

The fiscal, social, and emotional costs of large swath of homes burning down is huge and still difficult to calculate. Paradise is mostly still not being re-built. It took over 1 year for clean-up the debris of burned structures. that was a billion dollar cost. The state and FEMA are just now running the saws to drop hazard trees that are considered an eminent threaten to fall on public infrastructure (mostly roads). The broad brush stroke estimate was 300k trees. They expect that effort to take over a year. There's still no solution to the benezene-tainted (formerly) potable water lines that I'm aware of.

I still think Paradise had it's own unique issues that led to what occurred, but many places have their own unique issues. Can you image a rapidly moving crown fire in Tahoe on a busy weekend!?

[Meadow Skipper]

Skiing in the PNW, and most of the Western US, wouldn't exist but for large, catastrophic fires, that run without human intervention. All the nice, gladed, terrain I ski is because of fires. I get excited for fires, like the fire that went over East Peak near Crystal running all the way down to the edge of the in-bounds ski area, naturally clearing the heavily wooded terrain. With less snow each year (so less large, tree clearing avalanches), and less fires, our ski runs are getting choked with trees.

The negative environmental affect of people living in the woods is larger than the environmental effects natural fires have on water, agriculture, climate change, ect.

Look Karen, I see that you’re really enjoying your smug little conceit that everyone can live in cities and we can just let everything outside of the cities burn catastrophically, but it reeks of urban ignorance. If all you see, other than your office window and latest cool restaurant openings, is some nice skiing after a fire then my accusation of smug ignorance stands. Same for your seeming insistence that the only people that don’t live in cities are rich WFHers and dirt-poor trailer-parkers.

Where do you think your food and water comes from - urban community gardens and home rain barrels? Who do you think maintains and operates the roads and highways, power infrastructure, recreation sites (like ski areas), and the supporting infrastructure for those people? Do you think there are no effects from fires on water and food supplies? Energy infrastructure - power lines and pipelines?

Smug myopic urbanity.

[old goat]

It wasn't too long ago forestry experts were claiming clear cutting and replanting trees wasn't harmful to the forest, wrongfully assuming forest micro-biology was as simplistic as growing corn. So why do we think prescribed burns, which have much less intensity than natural fires, will satisfy the forests' biological need for large fires? Is this just another attempt of mankind trying (unsuccessfully) to manipulate the natural environment?

The natural fires in woodlands in pre-fire suppression days were low intensity fires that cleared out the undergrowth and spared mature trees. The point of prescribed burns is to try and duplicate those low intensity natural fires.

^ Great POV if you don’t care about wide-ranging effects that you refuse to see such as watershed health (ie. Where you get your water, dumbass), smoke and fire effects on agriculture (your food and weed) and public health, outdoor recreation (what are you doing in a skiing forum?), etc. There’s an entire world outside of your self-centered, ignorant, cloistered, office-bound life.

And don’t kid yourself, you are a total Karen.

Boy, you really upped the intellectual ante of this discussion. Well done.

People would see the impact on insurance. I’m shopping for new houses in the foothills and therefore shopping for insurance. Almost everything is fair plan only and the agents are preparing for a massive pullout of carriers from any wildfire areas. One house I looked at Lloyd’s was the only private insurer who would write it, $20k a year. Fair plan $6k. Currently paying $2k on a similar house.

Maybe, if so it will take a long time before the insurers see declining losses and pass the savings on to the insured.

Skiing in the PNW, and most of the Western US, wouldn't exist but for large, catastrophic fires, that run without human intervention. All the nice, gladed, terrain I ski is because of fires. I get excited for fires, like the fire that went over East Peak near Crystal running all the way down to the edge of the in-bounds ski area, naturally clearing the heavily wooded terrain. With less snow each year (so less large, tree clearing avalanches), and less fires, our ski runs are getting choked with trees.

The negative environmental affect of people living in the woods is larger than the environmental effects natural fires have on water, agriculture, climate change, ect.

Catastrophic fires are not the natural state of affairs. see above. Glades, OTOH, are the natural landscape in Western ski country. The landscape once contained many fewer, more widely spaced large mature trees which were able to thrive because they weren't competing for water with saplings and brush which were cleared out by fires. The figure I recall is in the coniferous woodlands a given area burned on average about every 15-20 years. (In the grasslands and chaparral of CA, every 5 years.)

[bodywhomper]

Small example, placer county water agency had a huge cost for sediment removal from two critical, but small, reservoirs in its system after the King Fire. They are now engaged in a treatment project, that includes rx burns in another headwaters area of their system because the cost of a similar exercise at their facilities in that watershed far exceeds to cost of the treatment and long term maintenance (with fire) of that watershed.

Another: high intensity fires result in large debris flows and alterations of the floodplain in the built-out urban and suburban areas.

Another: the Rim Fire near Yosemite drastically affected the SFPUC water system. The decimated forest was considered part of their water infrastructure resource. Mostly a forest (severely) burned and SFPUC was able to get federal disaster declaration. Better management of that forest by USFS, private property owners, and SFPUC would have reduced $$ for the post fire and recovery efforts.

[altasnob]

Have the large fires in Oregon this year had much of an impact on the agricultural industry in the Willamette Valley? Are fires in the Sierra having an effect on agriculture in the Central Valley? Most of my food comes from Yakima, Washington, which I don't believe has been affected in any way from wildfires.

Fire management is different from say, Southern California to Western Washington. Just want to point out that some would argue prescribed burns are a net negative for the environment. I am also skeptical that prescribed burns may be a tool for to the logging and housing industry to get permission to build roads and clear timber in areas where they are not currently allowed to build roads and clear timber.

I get how prescribed burns clear the underbrush and prevent new fires. But do they actually provide forests with the fire intensity that they need? Are prescribed burns just punting the problem down the road, just like fire suppression did?

[Meadow Skipper]

I forgot to mention Native American lands and reservations. Move them to the city, right?

[Lone Star]

Catastrophic fires are not the natural state of affairs. see above. Glades, OTOH, are the natural landscape in Western ski country. The landscape once contained many fewer, more widely spaced large mature trees which were able to thrive because they weren't competing for water with saplings and brush which were cleared out by fires.

Mostly true but don't paint with too broad a brush. Lodgepole pine, for instance, is a big fan of full stand replacement.

[Meadow Skipper]

Have the large fires in Oregon this year had much of an impact on the agricultural industry in the Willamette Valley? Are fires in the Sierra having an effect on agriculture in the Central Valley?

They will. If nothing else, I read where the cannabis crop in California has been negatively affected. Smoke damage to other crops is likely. Water shortages will result, especially if/when the current trend for catastrophic fires continues.

Most of my food comes from Yakima, Washington, which I don't believe has been affected in any way from wildfires.

Not yet, Mr. Myopia. And how about responding to my other points, instead of cherry-picking little aspects?

Fire management is different from say, Southern California to Western Washington. Just want to point out that some would argue prescribed burns are a net negative for the environment.

Who and why? Sources please.

I am also skeptical that prescribed burns may be a tool for to the logging and housing industry to get permission to build roads and clear timber in areas where they are not currently allowed to build roads and clear timber.

That is a real possibility, and needs to be countered with science.

I get how prescribed burns clear the underbrush and prevent new fires. But do they actually provide forests with the fire intensity that they need? Are prescribed burns just punting the problem down the road, just like fire suppression did?

They don’t ‘prevent’ fires, they mitigate the effects of (inevitable) wildfires. The intensity is controlled by the ‘prescription.’ They’re called prescribed fires because each burn is designed to take place in the place and under the optimum conditions to achieve the desired effects. Sometimes you want a low-intensity burn, other times you may want a high-intensity burn to achieve the desired effects, so the plan is written to design the ignition in the location and under the conditions needed to achieve those effects. Aspect, wind, fuels, humidity, fuel moisture, temperature, etc.

Prescribed fire planning is a legitimate science.

[TBS]

Trip Report - Aftermath of Holiday Farms Fire

This was an emotional day. My family had a home on the upper McKenzie River for 25 years. I spent a lot of time in the area on Motos and 4Xs, and fishing/hunting the area. Spent a season logging under a helicopter above Blue River Reservoir. My parent's and little brother's ashes were scattered here. The fire took the little grove where Mom's & brother's ashes were placed.

First the good news. The Tokatee golf course, the Belknap Covered Bridge and the Goodpasture Covered Bridge further downstream were all saved. The fire started 1/4 mile west of the Belknap Bridge

You can see the burn just over the first hill beyond the fairway



The town of Blue River didn't fare as well. It's burned to the ground, although the school buildings were saved




Finn Rock didn't fare so well either. There used to be a little general store on the left


Nor did much between Finn Rock and Vida



The randomness of which buildings were destroyed and which had no damage was a little chilling. And there are veritable graveyards of chimneys between the river and the highway.

Many of these homes have been around a long time, and won't likely get rebuilt. The lots are too narrow and close to the river to permit a proper septic system.

Stopped at the Paradise Campground (west end of McKenzie River Trail) for a picnic on the way home. This is about 5 miles east of where the fire started.


Took McKenzie Pass road home. This is part of the aftermath of the 25K acre Millie Fire in 2017.

Note the lodgepole fuel load that was there prior to the fire

And the Dee Wright Observatory at the top of McKenzie Pass about 15 miles (and 40 minutes) from my house. It was built as a CCC project, named after the project supervisor. It's a really cool place and well worth the trip

[old goat]

Mostly true but don't paint with too broad a brush. Lodgepole pine, for instance, is a big fan of full stand replacement.

Lodgepole isn't a climax species, or is it?
But yeah, I overgeneralize to make a point. Catastrophic fires were not unheard of in the pre-Columbian past, but certainly much rarer.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

They will. If nothing else, I read where the cannabis crop in California has been negatively affected. Smoke damage to other crops is likely. Water shortages will result, especially if/when the current trend for catastrophic fires continues.


Not yet, Mr. Myopia. And how about responding to my other points, instead of cherry-picking little aspects?


Who and why? Sources please.


That is a real possibility, and needs to be countered with science.


They don’t ‘prevent’ fires, they mitigate the effects of (inevitable) wildfires. The intensity is controlled by the ‘prescription.’ They’re called prescribed fires because each burn is designed to take place in the place and under the optimum conditions to achieve the desired effects. Sometimes you want a low-intensity burn, other times you may want a high-intensity burn to achieve the desired effects, so the plan is written to design the ignition in the location and under the conditions needed to achieve those effects. Aspect, wind, fuels, humidity, fuel moisture, temperature, etc.

Prescribed fire planning is a legitimate science.

I have a couple friends that are fuels specialists in different ranger districts and it is indeed a science. The amount of planning that goes into the prescribed burns is extensive.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Meadow Skipper]

^ There you go.

And btw it’s not just to reduce fire danger. Sometimes it’s things like wildlife habitat or range improvement, sometimes it’s invasive species, and of course silvicultural and/or watershed health.

First the desired condition (aka reason for burning) is established, and it isn’t always fire people that decide that - specialists in wildlife, watershed, forestry, botany, archaeology, ecology, recreation, range, etc. all have their input and parameters. Then there’s the smoke, weather, and operational specialists. The conditions and operational needs (including contingency plans) to meet the desired effects are established and reviewed and approved and monitored and then if, and only if, all the conditions are met and operational and contingency forces are available, the operation goes into effect.

After that review, evaluation, and monitoring go into effect.

At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

[TBS]

^^^In Deschutes NF, there's less than 10 days per year with acceptable conditions for prescribed burn. So yea, a lot of planning has to occur.

[Meadow Skipper]

^ I imagine air quality is a significant factor in there being so few acceptable burn days? Maybe the most significant?

[TBS]

AQ is certainly a big factor. Tourists bitch mightily when the skies are less than clear during their vacations. Nor do they want to have their access to recreational assets restricted by burns.

There's also temp, wind & RH factors. And the season can't start until the snow's melted, which is like mid-April at low elevations

[neufox47]

Maybe, if so it will take a long time before the insurers see declining losses and pass the savings on to the insured.

I actually don’t think it would, because people would see insurers actually willing to write their properties. Currently, it is very hard or next to impossible to get any private insurer in fire territory. You may even see areas open up the year after a prescribed burn. Like, oh they just did a burn through that area go ahead and write it.

[old goat]

I actually don’t think it would, because people would see insurers actually willing to write their properties. Currently, it is very hard or next to impossible to get any private insurer in fire territory. You may even see areas open up the year after a prescribed burn. Like, oh they just did a burn through that area go ahead and write it.

I think you give insurance companies too much credit for being up on science and technology; I think of them as a bunch of accountants who flunked the CPA test. But I don't know anything about the insurance business. I hope you're right.

Personally, my insurance guy--State Farm--says that they won't cancel me, period, although I know they're not writing new policies here. We'll see. He also told me I could skip the rider I have on my 65 Strat--if the house burns down they just pay the entire contents coverage no questions asked no documentation required and the amount--50% of the structure--will easily cover everything I own. (Anyone know a good torch; discretion required.)

[abraham]

Pretty sure he's an insurance expert, especially compared to most of us.