I have some questions about California

Treestuff
Wesspur
Advertise with us
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
newforest

newforest

ArboristSite Operative
AS Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
260
Reaction score
265
Location
Michigan
It's one of those sad times where I get asked a lot of questions about California.

My sincere sympathies to anyone who lived in Paradise, CA or any of the many other areas burned in the last few years.

I am fairly well versed in Forestry and in particular the operations of the U.S. Forest Service. I have been hearing the arguments about forest management and fires in the west since I was 8 years old, when my father first had to go out there to fight forest fires. But all Forestry is local, and I have only rarely been able to ever visit California unfortunately, and never it's forests, more unfortunately.

I'm not really looking for a thread to rehash all the battles over this the last many decades, I just want to fill in some holes in my understanding of things "out west" in general, maybe with specific examples in California along the way....

It's well known that CA has a massive Mountain Pine Beetle problem and probably other factors creating huge amounts of standing dead trees. I have read about the logistical challenges this is creating. I believe some areas have to focus on removing "Hazard Trees" - ones that will disintegrate dangerously, where there is human activity underneath - and don't have much hope of removal/salvage work 'away from the road' as it were. One question I have is -

Can the logs coming out of this work be used somewhere, somehow? Or is the supply of them too diffuse to warrant, say, building a new mill for this increased supply?

I have worked on a USFS "Fuel Reduction" cutting contract once, in Montana. I understand the basics of the idea. Sometimes, this can only be done by hand (slopes), and that's where I came in. Labor to do the hand-work is going to be supplied by immigrant labor, this I know well. I believe USFS continues this type of work to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars per year. My question is -

Can they realistically "catch up", with these techniques? From a point of view of a supply of dollars to do it, or labor to do it?

And finally, I am often around heartless, know nothing blowhards who suggest the people of Paradise, CA, for example, were stupid for living in a dry forest. "If they don't fire proof their house, it's their own damn fault if it burned down." As if people just let pine needles build up in snow drift type piles in their yard or something. Leading to my question -

Can you really 'fire proof' a house from fire-storm type conditions?


Any thoughts on my wonderings appreciated.
 
Can you really 'fire proof' a house from fire-storm type conditions?


That is kind of like asking "How much does a Car Cost?"

Each situation has to be judged and mitigated on a case by case basis, then decisions have to be made as to what the acceptable "Costs" are, both in Financial, and Livability terms.

You COULD build a Brick house with Cement tile roofing, in the middle of a "Defensible Space" that extends 300' in all directions from any structure, with nothing but Gravel or Concrete for ground cover.
Pretty Good chance that would survive MOST Firestorms, adding the sprinkler system would increase those odds even more, But is that your Idea of a home that you would want to live in?

You just have to decide where your level of Livability and practicality balance out, and accept that you have done as much as you are willing to do, and there is always the chance that some day, it just might not be "Enough"


Doug :cheers:
 
Bwildered said:
Yes , static water supplies with roof mounted sprinkler systems are a solution.
Click to expand...
I will start here as its a kuick answer (please note keyboard still buggered)

There are 2 problems with water in wildfire situations, getting it and moving it, California is pretty much a desert, most of the water comes from 100s of miles away, granted there are many wells and akuafers but not enough, pipes and what not are prohibitively expensive and failure prone on their own right.
 
newforest said:
It's one of those sad times where I get asked a lot of questions about California.

My sincere sympathies to anyone who lived in Paradise, CA or any of the many other areas burned in the last few years.

I am fairly well versed in Forestry and in particular the operations of the U.S. Forest Service. I have been hearing the arguments about forest management and fires in the west since I was 8 years old, when my father first had to go out there to fight forest fires. But all Forestry is local, and I have only rarely been able to ever visit California unfortunately, and never it's forests, more unfortunately.

I'm not really looking for a thread to rehash all the battles over this the last many decades, I just want to fill in some holes in my understanding of things "out west" in general, maybe with specific examples in California along the way....

It's well known that CA has a massive Mountain Pine Beetle problem and probably other factors creating huge amounts of standing dead trees. I have read about the logistical challenges this is creating. I believe some areas have to focus on removing "Hazard Trees" - ones that will disintegrate dangerously, where there is human activity underneath - and don't have much hope of removal/salvage work 'away from the road' as it were. One question I have is -

Can the logs coming out of this work be used somewhere, somehow? Or is the supply of them too diffuse to warrant, say, building a new mill for this increased supply?

I have worked on a USFS "Fuel Reduction" cutting contract once, in Montana. I understand the basics of the idea. Sometimes, this can only be done by hand (slopes), and that's where I came in. Labor to do the hand-work is going to be supplied by immigrant labor, this I know well. I believe USFS continues this type of work to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars per year. My question is -

Can they realistically "catch up", with these techniques? From a point of view of a supply of dollars to do it, or labor to do it?

And finally, I am often around heartless, know nothing blowhards who suggest the people of Paradise, CA, for example, were stupid for living in a dry forest. "If they don't fire proof their house, it's their own damn fault if it burned down." As if people just let pine needles build up in snow drift type piles in their yard or something. Leading to my question -

Can you really 'fire proof' a house from fire-storm type conditions?


Any thoughts on my wonderings appreciated.
Click to expand...


Thinning and managing what forests there are, requires money, money that the Forest Service doesnt have, and the state of California doesnt have for starters.

Secondly it requires a timber market, which is getting sparse as is, there is logging in California, but not as much as there needs to be

Third the beetle kill has sunk the markets for pine in the west

Forth and likely the largest point to make is that most of what burns in Caliphornia isnt what most loggers would call forest, but more bushes then anything, kinda hard to make boards out of sage brush and scotch broom, its one of those media misnomers calling them forest fires, so everyone thinks trees etc, when really they are wild fires... anyway, there are still large parts of Caliphoneria that are forested, or at least where... and logging takes place there but still....

Take this with a grain of salt cause its been nearly 30 years since Ive even been to Califoneya, but a big problem I seen even then is a bunch of houses parked in the trees like some idealic JRR Tolkien setting... and **** all being done about the piles of fuels stacked up around houses... A little homeowner pro-activity would likely go a long ways to preserving ones dwelling, by cutting back bushes, trees and other fuels to a reasonable distance, as well as addressing latter fuels in and around ones home, but alas, that would be assuming most homeowners are lazy SOBs. and are waiting for CalFire to do it for them...
 
Thanks for all thoughts, everyone. I have been meaning to pick up a copy of Pyne's book on the history of fire in North America, haven't got around to it yet. A totally contemporary, as in written this week, article on all this from him will probably be just the ticket here shortly.

I was at least able to explain (before this thread) to someone that the southern California fires, in particular, generally have nothing to do with forest management and harvests, etc, because there aren't usually timber species and sizes on the hills around L.A.

I really have a hard time around people who blame disaster victims for their predicament. In the case of these fires, they suggest exactly what was written above about perfectly fire-proof structures, as if everyone everywhere can afford anything and everything. The people who serve them their dinner or cut their hair for them or stock their grocery store shelf - it's their own damn fault for being poor.

And I am familiar with the long-time emphasis on reducing fire risk around buildings; education campaigns, etc. I would have to think that - at least a solid majority? - of property owners do take care of the basics in places where the fire risk is so obvious. A slow-moving ground fire isn't going to take out very many buildings. But burning chunks of wood flying onto your property from a fairly long distance.... it is hard to imagine it all, from 2,000 miles away.


The MPB mortality still intrigues me. Do the standing dead logs decline so fast as to be un-merchantable?

I am familiar with the chicken-egg nature of wood supply and mill base - no logs to mill cuz no one will harvest, mills close; closed mills can't drive a harvest in a local area, local forests then can't be harvested very easily. It seemed like the basic Forestry story where I worked in central Montana, for example. Seemed like a similar problem where I worked up in the NW corner of Virginia two winters ago. My friends and I all routinely call it the U.S. Forest Circus.


I enjoyed Fuel Reduction cutting. Just drop stems and go; day seemed short. Plus I liked working at elevation. All had to be slashed though, that part is a drag with the wrong saw set-up. (But day still seemed short). I would like to try it again with a proper 24" bar running skip-chain. But the amount of the work needed, man....
 
Newforest you brought up some very timely points that I have wanted some of the questions answered my self. It has been 40 years since I wore a fire suit and some times miss those days. I still work with the USDA USFS on a ongoing basis. In the case of Paradise, CA. it appears that all parties are responsible. Cal Fire can do better, county management can do better, California Forestry could do better, home owners could do better, and the USFS could use better management. Husky brought up an important point in that with an apparent fire proof house all would be safe. Reality is that most do not want or plan on fire proof anything when their hopes are on a nice livable house with one bedroom for each of their kids. Rules and regulations are extreme in California which should be ignored. The Air Quality Management Board will not allow burning or prescribed burns. They frown on almost all proposals so why bother. Cal Fire and the USFS should never ask the air management anything they should just tell them when they have a planned burn and do it. My time is spent for most part in Southern California so am not always informed as to the exact condition of Northern California forest. The Western Pine Beetle is not as severe as it was a few years ago, but it could be on the come back. However the forest had little to do the last round of fires that caused so much devastation. The brush and under growth were the big factors together with the high winds. When I was last in that area where one of my part time neighbors live he said that much of it was burned about 10 years ago so why bother with it. I told him just a month ago that it looked like a dry tinder box. Once one or two houses got going there is not much to keep an entire neighborhood from going and they went. So we have the perfect storm. Add all of this to a very dry summer and fall. My concern is what will take place to minimize these problems. Better weather will help, better all around forestry management will have a big impact. Home owners need to look at their roll in choosing to buy or build homes that are so vulnerable. Thanks
 
newforest said:
Thanks for all thoughts, everyone. I have been meaning to pick up a copy of Pyne's book on the history of fire in North America, haven't got around to it yet. A totally contemporary, as in written this week, article on all this from him will probably be just the ticket here shortly.

I was at least able to explain (before this thread) to someone that the southern California fires, in particular, generally have nothing to do with forest management and harvests, etc, because there aren't usually timber species and sizes on the hills around L.A.

I really have a hard time around people who blame disaster victims for their predicament. In the case of these fires, they suggest exactly what was written above about perfectly fire-proof structures, as if everyone everywhere can afford anything and everything. The people who serve them their dinner or cut their hair for them or stock their grocery store shelf - it's their own damn fault for being poor.

And I am familiar with the long-time emphasis on reducing fire risk around buildings; education campaigns, etc. I would have to think that - at least a solid majority? - of property owners do take care of the basics in places where the fire risk is so obvious. A slow-moving ground fire isn't going to take out very many buildings. But burning chunks of wood flying onto your property from a fairly long distance.... it is hard to imagine it all, from 2,000 miles away.


The MPB mortality still intrigues me. Do the standing dead logs decline so fast as to be un-merchantable?

I am familiar with the chicken-egg nature of wood supply and mill base - no logs to mill cuz no one will harvest, mills close; closed mills can't drive a harvest in a local area, local forests then can't be harvested very easily. It seemed like the basic Forestry story where I worked in central Montana, for example. Seemed like a similar problem where I worked up in the NW corner of Virginia two winters ago. My friends and I all routinely call it the U.S. Forest Circus.


I enjoyed Fuel Reduction cutting. Just drop stems and go; day seemed short. Plus I liked working at elevation. All had to be slashed though, that part is a drag with the wrong saw set-up. (But day still seemed short). I would like to try it again with a proper 24" bar running skip-chain. But the amount of the work needed, man....
Click to expand...

As for the Pine Beetle problem, its not so much that the timber goes bad fast, so much as there is just so much of it, the its impossible to harvest before it goes bad, especially since because there is so much that it drives the price down... a real conundrum if you will, granted the damage to the trees from the beetles is bad enough as is, most of it rots before anything can be done with it.
 
northmanlogging said:
I will start here as its a kuick answer (please note keyboard still buggered)

There are 2 problems with water in wildfire situations, getting it and moving it, California is pretty much a desert, most of the water comes from 100s of miles away, granted there are many wells and akuafers but not enough, pipes and what not are prohibitively expensive and failure prone on their own right.
Click to expand...
Static water isn't piped from anywhere, it's harvested off the roof & stored in tanks, new builds here in bushfire risk areas have a minimum of 10,000 litres dedicated storage for bushfire use
 
Bwildered said:
Static water isn't piped from anywhere, it's harvested off the roof & stored in tanks, new builds here in bushfire risk areas have a minimum of 10,000 litres dedicated storage for bushfire use
Click to expand...


while thats all well and good, and a wise idea, cali doesn't get much rain, and likely has laws preventing folks from harvesting water off their roofs, as that water could go down stream to water something else, its stupid and everyone knows it but thems the law.

admittedly
the rest of the stuff just make sense, and many houses are built with that in mind, but there are no laws enforcing such things
 
As far as run off from rain is concerned there are programs to take advantage of the run off. Here in Southern Cal many communities have free water storage kits to collect water from the rain gutters. The kits that I am aware of consists of about 6 plastic 55 gallon barrels and a down spout. It is not what I think is real effective, but better than nothing. For me its a little different in that I collect about 1200 CF every year which is enough to almost support my water usage for the entire year. It at least is a step in the right direction. The winter of 77-78 we received 90'' of rain then 78-79 we received about 120'' of snow. The following summer we also received devastating fires. For most part those winters are nonexistent today. Thanks
 
Water is not very effective as an agent in controlling fast-moving wildfires, or in protecting structures caught in them. There is not water enough in the world to stop a rager spotting a mile ahead of itself under weather conditions where the RH is in the teens and the winds are 50+ MPH. Smart construction will include both design and maintenance concerns, as addressed above, and location where natural features such as topography, fuels, and adjacent structures are part of the overall plan. Currently, wooden structures crowded together in box canyons because they command an impressive view are dangerously common. Sprinkler systems will not save structures in these conditions. Note that all of these concerns are part of the structure triage process outlined in the standard NWCG S-215 training which most of us here with fire experience have had. We are not ignorant.
 
madhatte said:
Water is not very effective as an agent in controlling fast-moving wildfires, or in protecting structures caught in them. There is not water enough in the world to stop a rager spotting a mile ahead of itself under weather conditions where the RH is in the teens and the winds are 50+ MPH. Smart construction will include both design and maintenance concerns, as addressed above, and location where natural features such as topography, fuels, and adjacent structures are part of the overall plan. Currently, wooden structures crowded together in box canyons because they command an impressive view are dangerously common. Sprinkler systems will not save structures in these conditions. Note that all of these concerns are part of the structure triage process outlined in the standard NWCG S-215 training which most of us here with fire experience have had. We are not ignorant.
Click to expand...
Our experience must be different to yours because from experience structures here have survived wildfires with just sprinklers alone which is why it is the best preventative measure that can be used & recommended here. Water deluge spray as far as my firefighting training goes is very effective in cooling & saving structures. The radiant heat of a typical bushfire front will ignite bare timber in around 30 seconds at a distance of 30 meters
 

Similar threads

S
MS311 bolt-ons
Replies
3
Views
302
stihltech
stihltech
C
I am new to stump grinding and have some questions.
2
Replies
22
Views
977
pdqdl
pdqdl
DropStart
Hello from Liepāja
Replies
2
Views
269
Hulpio
Hulpio
V
Stihl MS194T may have run without mix
Replies
9
Views
358
stihltech
stihltech
F
Asian Honey Suckle removal?
Replies
5
Views
609
fields_mj
F

Latest posts

Back
Top