Solutions to the new normal of our fire season

[kpeter]

We have had a policy of fire suppression in the Forest Service from the time of the Great Fire of 1910, the largest forest fire in United States history. It burned 3 million acres in 1910, in northern Idaho and Montana. It is difficult to argue that the Great Fire was the result of bad forestry management practices given that the Forest Service had only recently been founded. But that fire is what got the Forest Service into the fire suppression business, which it continued for decades--mainly for the economic purpose of preserving timber for the timber industry.

The arguments about forest management and whether logging (whether selective or clear cut) helps to prevent fire, deserve a level of sophistication that the general public usually lacks. Certain species of trees need regular fire to reproduce and survive. Clearcuts in some cases can imitate the effects of fire. Selective logging is less horrifying from an aesthetic standpoint, but whether it is the most ecologically beneficial practice depends on the mix of species and their stage in development. The most natural condition would be a mix of forests at various levels of plant succession and not all at climax. This mix of various successions helps to break forests into patches and thus avoid the huge monocultures that are especially vulnerable to disease and large fires. It also preserves much greater biodiversity. The timber industry likes monocultures--which is quite unnatural, but they also can help provide a patchwork, which is closer to nature than huge climax forests.

Then there is the real issue of climate change. My brother (doctorate in fire ecology) is emphatic that we cannot expect our forests to grow back after this round of fires to be the same as they were before. The climate zone on the west coast has shifted to the north. Southern California will wind up like Baja, NorCal will wind up a lot like SoCal, Oregon a lot like NorCal, etc. The zone could be shifting around 300 miles--although there is a lot of science left to be done to understand just how much and the precise effects. We need to pay attention not only to the increasing fires but more especially to what grows back after each fire. They won't always be the species we are used to seeing.

A significant problem with this shift is that it so much faster than anything that happens naturally that it will be difficult for plant and animal species that are adapted to a drier more southerly part of the Sierra to shift north as the climate changes. Any number of species that are located on climate islands in the southern Sierra could well go extinct before they can get established in a more appropriate climate zone to the north. Should we intervene by planting more drought tolerant southern species and subspecies in the cleared northern burn zones? Or should we wait for this to happen naturally? How long will that take? A millennia or three?

Here is my radical suggestion: given the importance of these fires and climate to our lives, could our society muster the resources to make fire science a priority? We probably spend 1/10 of one percent on research in fire ecology what we spend to put out fires. The kinds of argument we (and others) constantly have about these issues needs to be replaced with objective data and a sound understanding of the science involved.

[CAMERONM]

The "solution" is slowing and halting the conditions that create climate change. Along the way we will have to also carefully re-consider a range of short-term mitigation practices that are uncomfortable topics or politically difficult, like dams, nuclear power and green power, controlled consumption and planned growth. I fear that without a total societal acceptance of climate change as the starting point, we are doomed.

It could very well be that we need to radically reconsider how we manage the forests as more than just climate change mitigation but as a long-term best practice. In the meantime I guess that we will all have to get used to Zoom backpacking.

[Wandering Daisy]

An opinion piece stated something I had not considered. For all Trump's harping that CALIFORNIA needs to "clean their forest floors", about 40% of California forest land is federal, not state. Perhaps the FEDERAL government is the one who needs to fund more cleaning and do their job.

The main point is that the acreage of unhealthy forests is HUGE! The job of restoring forest health is enormous and will take years of funding and inter-agency cooperation along with public-private partnerships. Politically we are in a bad place right now to enact that- the country is too divided both politically and regionally. Ultimately we need to get climate change to slow down and I do not have high hopes about that one. Just look at the huge fires in Brazil for land clearing and arctic fires that are damaging permafrost. There also needs to be world-wide cooperation at a time when there is only conflict.

Rural development could be re-thought. Just like we clear a "safe space" around individual homes, we need to do the same around entire small communities built in fire prone areas. Local power generation would eliminate huge transmission lines which have been cause for some fires. Wildfire issues need to be added to environmental impact statements.

It is a complex issue, as Kpeter pointed out (good post!).

[kpeter]

The "solution" is slowing and halting the conditions that create climate change.

Absolutely. This is necessary to prevent the situation from getting even worse. And believe it or not, things can still get much, much worse. But even if the entire planet went carbon-neutral tomorrow, it would not reverse the climate changes that are already in full swing in California, and which have resulted in a decade of ever growing fire.

I'd love to imagine a world in which we went beyond carbon-neutral and actually began to reverse some of the carbon build-up, but that is the stuff of science fiction and will not happen, if ever, for generations. The question is what kind of world will be left by the time there is a global political consensus--and the will--to seriously deal with the problem?

Those who are optimists point to the attitudes of young people world-wide, who care passionately about this issue. The world will in fact change when they are in power. On the other hand, those who are pessimists point out that serious irreversible damage is being done now--that the environment is actually changing faster than our culture. Lesser changes have wiped out many previous civilizations.

I have been an optimist for a long time, since I teach college students and I get a first-hand look at our future through their eyes. That optimism is being put sorely to the test this year.

[rlown]

It seems easy to just put a label on it as 'climate change' and it is our fault, and then spend trillions on a problem that can't be solved. Remember when the Sahara was tropical and we weren't the cause for that change. Humans have a bigger problem: overpopulation.

Earth has cycles that we cannot control. Even if we try, we cannot change what she wants to do.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141053.htm

[dave54]

Can we ban the phrase 'new normal'? It has become trite and overused.

In this case, it is not even accurate. What we have seen in the past decade or so is actually the old pre-settlement period normal. We got spoiled in the twentieth century. That was the climate anomaly in the historic context. The 20th century was abnormally wet and consistent with less year-to-year variation in precipitation. The pre-settlement period in California was characterized by multiyear droughts punctuated with the occasional wet flood year. Large fires burned every year, covering millions of acres. 1821 was a massive fire year with large fire scars found from British Columbia to northern Mexico, the Rockies to the Pacific. Agee found a link between bad fire years and the sunspot cycle. Others looked at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation for a pattern. But really, all you need is a drier than normal year, an ignition source, and a wind event. All three are common now. Drier than normal is every other year, 40 million people in the state means lots of human caused fires, and wind events occur every year.

Look at what happened this year. A drier than normal Spring and Summer (fire season was well below average acres burned until mid August and 2019 was a dud fire season in California). A subtle shift in the semi-permanent high pressure ridge off the coast created the conditions we see saw. First, a convective system pounded the north half of the state with lightning, mostly dry, followed by a dry cold front with strong winds. The Bear Fire, part of the North Complex Plumas NF, was in a remote inaccessible area -- the bottom of Middle Fork of Feather River. Miles from the nearest community and not threatening anything of high economic value, it was a lower priority than other fires in the complex threatening homes. They were just getting ready to make a big effort on it when the winds hit, and the fire ran 15 miles in one afternoon right into the outskirts of Oroville. This is something to consider when armchair pundits demand just letting backcountry fires burn. They do not stay in the backcountry if you let them keep burning. Remote fires are allowed to burn now in many areas, but conditions must be favorable, and favorable conditions and locations are getting smaller and fewer.

Controlled burning is not a solution by itself. We cannot burn enough acres annually. Impossible. A delusional fantasy. Some mechanical treatment will be needed. Anyone who claims otherwise is denying reality. We also need to get mean and nasty about community fire protection and fire safety codes. California has among the toughest fire codes in the country, but are not enforced. Developers ask for, and get, variances to the mandated community design standards. Local planning commissions need to learn how to say NO. An unintended consequence of Prop 13 puts pressure on local government to approve new development, and the only place left in the state to build is fire prone areas.
Environmental groups challenge the most stringently planned mechanical treatment. Community activists go ballistic when PG&E trims tree around powerlines (as we saw last month in Yuba County, and last year in Santa Cruz). gov gruesome signed an executive order exempting control burns and fuels treatments from some CEQA requirements and the sierra club issued a condemnation of it.

Treated vegetation grows back. Any fuel treatment, whether a controlled burn or mechanical, is not once and done. It must be repeated every few years. The first areas need retreatment before all the initial backlog is treated for the first time. As the ProPublica article pointed out, we need to treat upwards of three million acres per year, every year from now into eternity, just to stay even. Realistically, that is not going to happen even in an ideal world.

Even with a prioritized network of fuels treatments around high risk communities, there will still be large fires. With aggressive action we can save more homes from burning, but we cannot reduce the total acres burned. As outdoor recreation enthusiasts we need to accept there will be smoke in the air all summer long, and large areas of backcountry will be closed periodically because of a fire. That is what the 'solutions' called for in this thread results in. It is a package deal. The question is will people accept the price of what they ask for. History tells us no.

[dave54]

An opinion piece stated something I had not considered. For all Trump's harping that CALIFORNIA needs to "clean their forest floors", about 40% of California forest land is federal, not state. Perhaps the FEDERAL government is the one who needs to fund more cleaning and do their job.

The main point is that the acreage of unhealthy forests is HUGE! The job of restoring forest health is enormous and will take years of funding and inter-agency cooperation along with public-private partnerships. Politically we are in a bad place right now to enact that- the country is too divided both politically and regionally. Ultimately we need to get climate change to slow down and I do not have high hopes about that one. Just look at the huge fires in Brazil for land clearing and arctic fires that are damaging permafrost. There also needs to be world-wide cooperation at a time when there is only conflict.

Rural development could be re-thought. Just like we clear a "safe space" around individual homes, we need to do the same around entire small communities built in fire prone areas. Local power generation would eliminate huge transmission lines which have been cause for some fires. Wildfire issues need to be added to environmental impact statements.

It is a complex issue, as Kpeter pointed out (good post!).

The federal agencies must follow laws passed by Congress, even if the laws are ill-conceived and contrary to good science. Do you have any idea how frustrated federal land managers are? Their hands are tied by appropriations from Congress and laws that hinder good science-based management.

[dave54]

I see it as an environmentalist issue for not actually allowing logging and good forest mgmt.
Also on the homeowners who constantly ignore the defensible space requests.

And I am a Republican. I see Newsom has been doing a bag up job prepping for each fire season in CA. NOT!

Neither party can stop lightning though, just to be fair.

Newsome signed an executive order relaxing some of the CEQA requirements for control burns and mechanical fuels treatments. The sierra club issued a condemnation.

Although climate change is partially to blame, so is increased fuel loading. Several of the large fires ripped through areas of high mortality and slowed down, dropped to low intensity, when entering an area of low mortality. Same for managed commercial timberlands. A wildfire in a logged stand has far less intensity and impacts than a fire in an overstocked unmanaged forest.

[SSSdave]

Agree kpeter with your well crafted post. The issue is complex like many other issues we humans tend ignore or address poorly, as we need to listen to experts and make science based decisions. Unfortunately on a planet wide basis, that is difficult because we are many nations with many not interested in long term interests if they get in the way of powerful short term economic interests.

Also as rlown stated, the bigger problem that goes far beyond fires is overpopulation. And with that endless growth and development for selfish inconsiderate short term economic wealth.

Also agree with dave54's well presented post. Even after all these fires, there are many others that will continue to remain in denial that it will happen to them. As soon as the smoke and fires wane as our wet rainy season sets in, one can expect little will be done as politicians come out of their holes and stick their hands out to the same back door powerful interests that quietly carry out their agenda.

[tie]

It seems easy to just put a label on it as 'climate change' and it is our fault, and then spend trillions on a problem that can't be solved. Remember when the Sahara was tropical and we weren't the cause for that change. Humans have a bigger problem: overpopulation.

Earth has cycles that we cannot control. Even if we try, we cannot change what she wants to do.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141053.htm

No, I don't remember when the Sahara was tropical, because *that was 6,000 years ago*!

When you go backpacking, do you just dump your trash by the side of the trail? It'll just magically disappear when someone else comes along to pick it up. Trash is a "problem that can't be solved," right? Where do you think the pollution out of your tailpipe goes, it just magically disappears, too?

The real problem is people who get their news from QAnon conspiracy theories. How can somebody, in 2020, be ignorant of climate change? Even *ExxonMobil* acknowledges it https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/ene ... ate-change . But you know better, don't you, because of some Russian propaganda you read on Facebook.