3:13 p.m. Sept. 1, 2021
For decades land managers and some residents in the Lake Tahoe area have been anticipating the Caldor Fire that has been burning since August 14. The blaze has blackened more than 204,000 acres as it rages to the northeast. It passed through the south edge of Meyers six miles south of the lakeshore and the head of the fire Wednesday morning was four miles from the lake.
Under the concept of reducing the fire threat to structures in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the US Forest Service and other organizations have been conducting hazardous fuel treatments. Since 1997, over 2,000 acres of landscape underburns and over 8,000 acres of prescribed pile burning has been completed on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU), a division of the USFS that manages much of the land near the lake. In these areas, surface fuels have been reduced and smaller live trees thinned. The USFS says this “creates a zone where a damaging crown fire is less likely, which provides a safer environment for firefighters.”
The map above shows the fire on the morning of September 1 and completed hazardous fuel treatments. The green areas represent mechanical methods, such as thinning by hand or by using machines such as dozers or feller bunchers which can rapidly gather and cut a tree before felling it. Then the cut vegetation is piled. The purple areas represent locations where piles were burned. Some of the projects shown were completed in the last few years and others are older. This map shows very few areas (in yellow) that were treated with prescribed broadcast fire.
The USFS web page for the LTBMU politely says that budget restraints limit the number of acres that can be treated: “Increasing the annual number of acres treated with prescribed fire will challenge our future capacity.”
The hope is that reducing the flammable vegetation will reduce the chances of structures being destroyed when a fire like the Caldor Fire burns into the area. Thinning trees and removing brush will not stop a fire, but in a best case scenario under benign weather and fuel conditions it might reduce the intensity of the fire and the number of firebrands landing on and near structures. If a fire does dramatically slow down when entering a treated area, it may make it possible for firefighters on the ground, perhaps aided by firefighters in the air, to stop the spread. That is, unless the wind is too strong and the vegetation moisture is historically low like we have seen this summer in California. As we wrote on August 22, under these conditions, “There is no possibility of stopping the forward spread of the fire. There is no number of 747 air tankers or firefighters on the ground that could be effective against the flaming front of this raging inferno.” This will continue to be true until something changes — some combination of cooler more humid weather, less wind, and vegetation with higher moisture content — or until it runs out of fuel at high elevations or spreads into agricultural land.
The Caldor has been lofting burning embers into the air that have landed a mile ahead of the flaming front, starting new fires, called spot fires by firefighters. When that is occurring fuel reduction projects a half mile wide around a community will not necessarily keep structures from burning. We could pave the forest paradise and put up a parking lot but if a fire a mile away can ignite residences we need other solutions.
The Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) is what home owners need to concentrate on. If it is welcoming to an ember storm, then the structure could burn no matter how much forest management is done. The HIZ must be maintained so that burning embers will not start a fire on the structure or ignite nearby vegetation which creates a fire that spreads to and ignites the building.
This is called Living With Fire. We can’t stop fires from burning, but we can stop homes from igniting when the inevitable fire occurs.
The best way to prevent homes from being destroyed in a wildfire is not clear cutting or prescribed burning a forest, it is the homeowner reducing flammable material in the HIZ. This includes spacing the crowns of trees at least 18 feet apart. The envelope of the structure itself must be fire resistant, including the roof, vents, siding, doors, windows, foundation, fences, eaves, and decks. A FEMA publication (13 MB) has excellent detailed recommendations. Headwaters Economics found that the cost of building a fire-resistant home is about the same as a standard home. When implemented, Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, regulates these features.
Here is an excerpt from an article written by Jack Cohen and Dave Strohmaier:
Uncontrollable extreme wildfires are inevitable; however, by reducing home ignition potential within the Home Ignition Zone we can create ignition resistant homes and communities. Thus, community wildfire risk should be defined as a home ignition problem, not a wildfire control problem. Unfortunately, protecting communities from wildfire by reducing home ignition potential runs counter to established orthodoxy.
UPDATE September 3, 2021:
In a live briefing Sept. 3 about the Caldor Fire near South Lake Tahoe, California, East Side Incident Commander Rocky Oplinger complimented the land owners and managers for the fuel treatments that have been accomplished over the years. He said the 150-foot flame lengths dropped to about 15-feet when the fire entered the treated areas. This allowed hand crews and engines to take an aggressive approach to suppress the fire and prevent structure loss. The video of the briefing is on Facebook; Mr. Oplinger’s comments about the fuel treatments begin at 34:10.
This is a lot of comments from people not from the area. A ton of misinformation. California does a crap job of cleaning the forest in Tahoe and the surrounding area. You can literally see the difference when hiking across the stateline from Nevada to California. Step it up California clearly preventing fires is not their priority as their state continues to burn every year. Ruining the quality of life for CA residents and for those of us living nearby.
A lot more forest area in the California Sierra than in the Nevada Sierra. A lot different forest type between the two. Not easy to make a comparison.
If you live in Tahoe, you should know California does not own or manage the Forests, only small State Parks like DL Bliss and Sugar Pine.
Also, Nevada is on the leeward and rain shadow side of Tahoe aka the “banana belt” from from Zephyr Cove to Sand Harbor. So, it did/has a different forest habitat.
All the posts on this thread are very informative. There is still a lot of verification needed on what caused our sick forests and on what we can do about them. There are truths on both sides of the debates. Perhaps one way to sift through it all is to narrow the scope to just what is happening right now. The forests are as dry as can be and ready to explode. The foothill and mountain communities are radically exposed. A simplistic (and therefore begs criticism) is to revolutionize our aerial attack capacity with the “impossible” goal of putting out all forest fires as they start. I mean bomb the hell out of each start, well before the ground crews get there… so when they do get there it is just mop up. This would require a lot more reconnaissance and a lot faster aerial response. Any ideas outside the box on how to do this are welcome. One thing comes to mind is a fleet of those super scoopers throughout Calif as part of our new infrastructure bill. For examples, imagine if a scooper was stationed on Lake Oroville before the Camp and Dixie fires. Imagine if PG&E had little web cams spaced at close intervals on there high voltage towers. And this does preclude the importance hardening our homes and towns. Imagine most homes having “outdoor” house sprinkling systems… embers tend not to accumulate on wet wood. Just food for thought…and maybe some action.
Fuel. Weather. Topography. Removing fuel? Will it work? Hand line. Burnout. Dozer lines. Skidder trails. Burn scars. Thinned sections. Man made or natural control lines say it does. Not rocket science. Is this really being asked in 2021?
If it were only that simple.
Bill,
In an additional response to what you posted for me (above) and the URL that I’d provided, perhaps a small part of what was said in that article was true. When it comes to thinning to reduce wildfire, could it be that it all depends on what kind of a forest it is?
I believe that the major benefits of thinning and conducting occasional prescribed burns in ponderosa pine / Jeffrey pine forests have been well documented. I don’t think that guy has much of an argument there.
But in higher elevation fir forests he might have. Huge, mature fir trees like the ones in Blue Canyon do perhaps keep the ground shaded and damper. Their removal through selective logging might allow solar radiation to dry out the ground more and increase the risk of a catastrophic wildfire.
However, I believe that the greatest way that logging can exacerbate wildfire is by churning up and effectively cultivating the ground allowing millions upon millions of seeds to germinated and grow up into a very dense stand. After having grown up in Arizona, I personally saw a lot of ponderosa pine thickets like that.
What’s truly amazing is that all these bad fires didn’t happen much sooner.
Here is a classic example of what I’m talking about:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zs3lsNcP19Q/WMvz8MxaB_I/AAAAAAAAI_E/wSfFUddkVHEEFCDZdVcz2t8oLLtm5_U0QCLcB/s1600/DSC06904.jpg
That was on Mount Lemmon north of Tucson. Virtually all of those young pines perished last year in the Bighorn Fire. The Forest Service (or someone) had nearly 15 years to thin those. It just plain never happened.
We need to agree on just what it is that we are trying to achieve on our public forests and other public land.
It will not be easy, but we will be better served if we can keep politics as many arm’s lengths away as possible. Simple to imagine…much, much more difficult to accomplish.
And the same can be said for all of the other serious problems we face.
Here’s something we can aim for…let’s put the ‘common’ back in ‘common sense’.
Bill & Group,
Now here is an article the purports to state the exact OPPOSITE and contradict everything I’ve come to believe about forest thinning: https://grist.org/fix/forest-thinning-logging-makes-wildfires-worse/
So, what is really true? Just like “climate change” and COVID, we have scientists out there who are supposedly reputable stating one thing then other scientists, also supposedly reputable, saying something else. I am coming to the point to where I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore.
So, yes, I’m a bit confused I’m afraid.
The author makes some valid points especially in regards to making homes less vulnerable to wildfire.
I believe he misses the mark when discussing the volume of timber removed from our National Forests that is commercially valuable. I think this volume is a relatively insignificant component of the overall amount of timber that is sawn into lumber.
Many of his comments are politically charged. His research an d book are just one of many. I’m sure there are many different outcomes from the various research projects. He obviously does not support timber harvesting and he does, afterall, have a book to sell.
He is smart in that he knows to strike when the iron is hot.
Fred,
The Science of Fire is relatively new and started in the 1930’s. So, solutions to wildfire prevention are still evolving to some degree but they are available; thinning, selective timber harvests, defensible space, defined urban/forest interface, controlled burns, water conservation, replanting etc.
The Science of Vaccines has been in place for over 200 years. The clear solutions for Covid are available now; vaccines, masks and social distance.
The Science of of Climate Change has been in place for almost 200 years and is no longer debated since we see the actual affects and Scientific data on a daily basis. Even Large petrochemical corporations admit Climate Change is here. The solutions for Climate Change are available in a mix of old; geo thermal since the 3rd century, solar cells invented in the 1883, batteries circa 1800, wind turbines circa 1887 and hydro electric circa 1882. More recently molten salt core nuclear reactors (smaller and safer than light water breeders) circa 1954.
We are at the “choice” and implementation phase now.
Mr. Smith,
Thank you so much for mentioning “hydro”. That is the one source of no-carbon power that seems to have been forgotten. Build more dams? Nah. We have dozens perhaps even hundreds of dams here in the Midwest that COULD drive a turbine but currently don’t have one. In fact, a few hydro plants have even been decommissioned in recent years. Why? In the politics of climate change, hydroelectric power gets almost NO mention. Zip. Nichts, nada. Again, why? Maybe it’s not “sexy” enough? Environmentalists oppose it because they don’t want a lot of new dams built but, like I say, that might not be necessary. Obviously, hydro electric power cannot be 100% of the solution, either, but surely the use of more hydro wouldn’t hurt, either.
Like I said, though. If we eliminate all carbon emissions tomorrow, it could take a century for the atmosphere to return to the pre-industrial revolution carbon dioxide levels. So, some kind of adaptation is not only desirable but probably down-right necessary.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Excellent summary, Bill. I’m bookmarking it for future reference.
Bill & Group,
O.K., I’m gonna really go out on a limb here (perhaps a burnt limb) and say that the light might be at the end of the tunnel.
I have been watching the Jet Stream forecast maps on Weatherstreet and they suggest an exceptionally early fall. If those maps from this afternoon are even close to being right (and I am praying that they are) rain might not be too far off! It looks like about a week away from tomorrow or this Saturday!
I hope and pray so, because I can predict or, maybe I should say that I fear, that these fires, the Caldor and the Dixie will burn until they either A). run out of fuel or B). it rains – which ever comes first. Hopefully it will be the rain !
Let’s hope so !
The USFS may have been working on fuel treatments since 1997. CDF was doing fuel treatment projects in the Tahoe basin in the early 80s, especially around Fallen Leaf Lake.
Regarding the Home Ignition Zone and thinking of my parent’s home in Camino, CA, a lot of those trees that need to come out will require the services of an arborist crew to remove the trees without destroying the landscaping and homes under them. You will run into considerable objections because a lot of the people who live in places like Grizzley Flat and Omo Ranch do so precisely because they like living in the forest. They won’t like being told they have to convert their forest to woodland. (Of course, as we have seen, Mother Nature doesn’t take no for an answer.)
Jim,
I think it’s O.K. to have a forest as long as it isn’t too dense so that a ground fire can sweep through the forest and not crown.
From the pictures I’ve seen of the burnt trees at Grizzly Flats, YIKES! That stand was REALLY dense. Which, I suppose, it what you were saying.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Wildland Firefighters are very Professional. Please do NOT say that they are simply “unskilled labor.”
The Firefighters I know personally and the one that I married are skilled, dedicated and do their best under extreme conditions for the greater good.
Remember. Envy is a deadly sin.
I hope I’m not premature in making this comment. Kinda a like a big “knock on wood” but this morning (09/02/21) it’s beginning to look as though this crisis might have turned the corner. It’s not over by any means but things really are looking up this morning.
So, by all means, keep your fingers crossed and keep on praying ! ! !
Fred M. Cain,
Topeka, IN
“Increasing the annual number of acres treated with prescribed fire will challenge our future capacity.”
Why is it that budgets for prescribed burning are always limited, when we know that *not* doing prescribed burning will result in situations where budgets for fighting wildfire will of necessity be unlimited? For every dollar you see being spent (billions!) on fire suppression under emergency conditions, ask yourself how much prescribed burning could have been safely performed under non-emergency conditions.
Tom,
I think it’s because the two (thinning/prescribed burning and emergency responses) probably come out of two completely different funding wells.
I agree that obviously needs to change.
Oh my goodness, not a single thing you wrote is correct. The trees are the exact same genetics, there is no weaker genetics….you don’t know it, but you are referring to phenotype. But, that is also not important. There is no such thing as a stable forest ecosystem….never has been, that is why scientists study forest stand dynamics.
Please, ask questions. You do not know about what happened in this firefight. It proved forest thinning and forest restoration reduces fire intensity. This results in less mortality and better structure defense in communities.
Bill this is simple stuff. We worked where we knew we had fuel or fire control issues, and then created defensible space around the communities. That was absolutely part of the success. This is very simple, reducing fuel from 500-1500 feet from a community reduces preheating, reduces ember production, and provides a safe fireground to work from. That is what we did in Tahoe, and it worked. Clearly.
Does that mean you don’t need defensible space, no. No one is saying that Bill, but we need to look at the whole.
By the way, I have about five communities around because of projects I have done. What have you done to get such strong views?
So you don’t think embers can cross 1500 ft to the nearest roof top? One burning house is all the pre-heating needed to launch and urban firestorm. Bill is correct…the best way to prevent homes from being destroyed is the homeowner reducing flammable material in the HIZ. No doubt a wildfire starts a town burning, but the type of fire that spreads through the rest of the town is it’s own beast. It is hotter, faster, and produces a lot more embers and spotting. Structures need to be designed to withstand the urban firestorm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Fort_McMurray_wildfire
Sounds like the 2016 fire in Alberta.
I remember thinking, “sounds like a Canopy fire, but, with Condominiums”.
This also happened in the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire.
It got to the fraternity & sorority buildings, which seemed to remember, “oh yes, we’re made of Wood !” and also burned.
It seems like the fire has paused on the edge of the major suburbia parts of South Lake Tahoe, and with the wind decreasing, maybe the most difficult parts are over, on this particular incident.
And I understand that if you have no practical experience in community protection you could take that position. I thinned 20,000 acres of Tahoe and we have not a house lost.
You know more than me.
can’t lose a house if there hasn’t been a fire. it does not look like there is any room for a conversation with you, so i will just leave you with this interesting article for you to ponder. have a good day. https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article253856133.html
Wow, you must be busy doing all that work. Humility would sell your story even better.
You’d better hope that fire doesn’t get up now and run into the community, John.
I do not think people are seeing the big picture. most of the sierra foothills was logged bare in prior centuries. what grew in its place was genetically inferior trees highly susceptible to bark beetles that were also highly flammable. branches range up and down the tree which makes them more flammable. the original trees were massive with branches at the very top. it is getting hotter and will continue to get hotter. western nv county just experienced a summer where 90% of days were over 85. that has not happened before. the clearing of forests created an unstable forest ecosystem. mother nature does resets on her own terms and as you discussed mother nature does her own prescribed burns. south lake is where i grew up so it pains me to say this is all a thumb in the dykee
Trena,
I agree and I think those are good thoughts. I would just like to add that logging operations often tear up the forest floor in a way that exposes mineral soil and prepares an ideal seedbed. Then, millions upon millions of tree seedlings sprout and grow up and if they don’t get thinned…………
A similar thing can happen after a big fire like this one. In areas where an occasional tree is left standing as a seed source, millions of new seedlings can grow up and then, if they’re not thinned……….
That is exactly what happened on Mount Lemmon north of Tucson after the devastating 2003 Aspen Fire. Hundreds of thousands of new trees grew up into a dense “doghair thicket” and then in the Bighorn Fire of last year they all burned again. Most perished as they were not yet well enough established and were far, far too dense. The Forest Service KNEW they needed to thin them out but just plain didn’t do it. I don’t know if funding was lacking or what but it just didn’t happen.
Tahoe does not have any logging. It’s is not a thing here.
Thats because of two main clearcut eras in Tahoe, starting with timber in the mines of Nevada during the latter half of the 18th century.
I have seen logging trucks pulling out onto 50 and 89 from side roads for years. My wife (worked for USDA/FS for years) calls it “picking pumpkin trees.”
If the timber cutters actually re-plant, it becomes a mono forest with the trees being the same age susceptible to same diseases or blights. But, the larger problems with clear cuts is denuding the forest that then causes land slides and runoff issues after it rains.
Case in point, look at New Zealand commercial tree plantations: one hill growing cornrows of trees, some healthy some not clumped together then around the corner, hills with vast wastelands left behind after the cuts; only some occasional tree ferns in a sea of pink dirt with major erosion gullies, slash and stumps.
Same situation here and around the world really.
There will be runoff issues after these western fires and elsewhere around the world. A number of tree species require fire for germination. Hopefully there will be more diversity in the forests that grow back, if the rains return.
Trying to “manage” vast forests in nature is a very tricky endeavor or perhaps impossible (as you implied.
J. Smith,
In your second to last paragraph you mentioned “if the rains return”. Oh, yeah, they will indeed! Climate change notwithstanding, never underestimate the power of “reversion to the mean”.
Some scientists tend to believe that climate change might increase the frequency of extreme weather events. i.e. the flood years will become worse along with the drought years.
At the danger of veering off onto a climate change tangent, I have been reading that there is a belief, and I think they have proof of this if we can find that documentation, that if ALL greenhouse gas emissions were to end tomorrow, it could take a century for CO2 levels to return to what they were before the industrial revolution. I know, kinda depressing, huh?
So, what we really need to do (assuming we are first successful in getting emissions under control) is to adapt. We need to plan for more large and hot fires and hopefully keep them in check.
Here are some ideas and suggestions:
Thin trees and conduct prescribed burns in forests where it is appropriate.
Stop building expensive homes in fire prone areas. In fact, we might even care to consider removing some that are already there.
On red flag days, people need to be a whole lot more careful with fire. Is our government and our politicians doing all they can to educate people of the dangers? I hope so but sometimes I’m not quite sure.
And here is something fun from our old friend and Twilight Zone host Rod Serling. Please make sure you have your computer’s sound on before you watch this. I think it’s just as emotionally moving as it was 55 years or so ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1X25yhpzI
Hi Fred,
In general, I believe we NOT on an optimistic trajectory of wildland fires in the tropics or both hemispheres. I hope I am wrong but hope is not a plan.
I did forgot to mention snow in my comment. So, I should have said if rains and snows return; which is quite unknown.
Past trends show western snow levels rising in altitude and latitude, along with the retreat of glaciers we have a triple threat of water problems coming long term. And I have not seen any sort of planning to address associated river declines. If wildfires seasons continue along the current trajectory of length and numbers, we will need massive increases in firefighting personnel and equipment.
Thinning and ongoing maintenance of the boreal and temperate forests of America, North America is a very large and expensive proposition and I would say that could take decades. Unfortunately, wildfires happen every year and moot such long range goals. So, there will need to be “choices” made about where to thin; which will no doubt be very contentious. I suggest starting in larger cities in forested areas that have infrastructure in place then expand out and let the heated debate start.
People live in the forests and are well established, so moving out is probably not in the cards. However. Regarding constructing homes in the forest; I think that the insurance companies will play a roll in this very soon. Also, cities surrounded in forested areas will need plans for some major strategic planning for wildfires. Perhaps, as you may have mentioned previously, some sort of agricultural buffer areas around as well.
Last, then local life long politicians comment that Wildland Firefighters are “unskilled labor,” I would say that we are beyond “educating” a large percentage of the population.
Rod and Smokey ride again.
I will add “good luck.”
I believe the term “monoculture forest” applies to Trena’s comment. Search the term.
“Genetically modified trees” are real but they not allowed yet for replanting. (ex. Brazil & China ?)
I would add that Nature has created “Pytophyte trees” that need or use fire in their life cycle.
California allows 5 year to replant a clearcut I believe. And a forest requires 60 years or so to grow back.
Yes, beetles are a problem for “same age trees” after replanting along with other blights.
Thanks Trena
Very good points. There is still a lot of verification needed on what caused our sick forests and on what we can do about them. There are truths on both sides of the debates. Perhaps one way to sift through it all is to narrow the scope to just what is happening right now. The forests are as dry as can be and ready to explode. The foothill and mountain communities are radically exposed. A simplistic (and therefore begs criticism) is to revolutionize our aerial attack capacity with the “impossible” goal of putting out all forest fires as they start. I mean bomb the hell out of each start, well before the ground crews get there… so when they do get there it is just mop up. This would require a lot more reconnaissance and a lot faster aerial response. Any ideas outside the box on how to do this are welcome. One thing comes to mind is a fleet of those super scoopers throughout Calif as part of our new infrastructure bill. For examples, imagine if a scooper was stationed on Lake Oroville before the Camp and Dixie fires. Imagine if PG&E had little web cams spaced at close intervals on their high voltage towers. And this does not preclude the importance hardening our homes and towns. Imagine most homes having “outdoor” house sprinkling systems… embers tend not to accumulate on wet wood. Just food for thought…and maybe some action.
There is a tremendous story about the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team to be told here. It took everyone working together to get this done.