Forum Index > Stewardship > Long-term Perspective on Wildfires in the Western USA
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5228 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostFri Aug 24, 2018 5:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
It is still not odd to be this smoky when we have so many fires going.  I consider the fires to be normal due to the condition of the forests.  That's it, that's my conclusion.  Take it or leave it.

Plus, there are a heck of a lot of experts around who do not write papers, who have observed the conditions, some for generations.  But you've been told that before.  Not gonna argue with you on this topic. You seem to have no respect for anybody who has not written a paper for a PHD.

Drabble on....

Gary Brill:
Quote:
It certainly hasn't been smoky like this in the Pacific Northwest in the last 70 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 934 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostFri Aug 24, 2018 10:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
But according to that papers data it was often very smoky before about 1900.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs

Token Civilian
  Top

Member
PostFri Aug 24, 2018 10:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/08/northwest-wildfires-are-we-seeing-new.html

Edit to add:
Read it all.  Lots of historical data.

Small snip from the conclusion.

Quote:
Today, the bill for our suppression of fire and poor forest management in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia has now come due.  Those who blame our dangerous situation on a "new normal" solely resulting from climate change, are not only misinformed, but they can act as obstacles to the actions that are acutely needed:  a massive effort to thin our forests and bring back low-intensity fire.  Some enlightened politicians, like Senator Maria Cantwell, are calling for such an approach...they should be supported.

Warming from increasing greenhouse gases is surely making the situation a bit worse, and its impact will undoubtedly escalate when the real warming occurs later in this century.   But today, global warming is a relatively small element of the current wildfire situation, particularly in the slow to warm Pacific Northwest.  As citizens of one small region, there is only so much we can do to stop global warming. But we can fix our forests, improving the fire/smoke situation today and preparing for the greater warming that is undoubtedly in our future.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5228 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostSat Aug 25, 2018 6:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Token Civilian wrote:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/08/northwest-wildfires-are-we-seeing-new.html

Edit to add:
Read it all.  Lots of historical data.

Small snip from the conclusion.

Quote:
Today, the bill for our suppression of fire and poor forest management in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia has now come due.  Those who blame our dangerous situation on a "new normal" solely resulting from climate change, are not only misinformed, but they can act as obstacles to the actions that are acutely needed:  a massive effort to thin our forests and bring back low-intensity fire.  Some enlightened politicians, like Senator Maria Cantwell, are calling for such an approach...they should be supported.

Warming from increasing greenhouse gases is surely making the situation a bit worse, and its impact will undoubtedly escalate when the real warming occurs later in this century.   But today, global warming is a relatively small element of the current wildfire situation, particularly in the slow to warm Pacific Northwest.  As citizens of one small region, there is only so much we can do to stop global warming. But we can fix our forests, improving the fire/smoke situation today and preparing for the greater warming that is undoubtedly in our future.


Cliff Mass is far from a forest fire expert and is at best an outlier regarding climatologists and forestry experts view of the role climate change regarding the upward trend in forest fire severity that began to be seen in the mid-1980's and has acclerated dramatically since the early 2000's (the source being US records - look for the graph). And yes thinning makes sense in protecting towns and in lessening and making manageable fires that start near roads where humans have an impact and are likely to start fires. Nonetheless, the last paper I cited shows that global warming is responsible for about 50% of the increase in wildfire acreage burned since about the mid-80's.

As to ancient fires, yes certainly, but you have to realize we did not have the technology or manpower to control those burns, as for instance was done with the Redding and Mendocino burns. If you think the problem isn't global warming but past fire management, you need go no further than the increase in fire acreage burned in the boreal forests of Western Canada where management and control of fires was not historically done. They're seeing the same increase. And then, of course, there is the 6 million acre wildfire in Alaska in around 2004.....it wasn't apparently controlled because it threatened no human populations. Wildfires in the Boreal Forests Exceed those of the last 10,000 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 10104 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSat Aug 25, 2018 8:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
It certainly hasn't been smoky like this in the Pacific Northwest in the last 70 years.

True, but 70 years is only back to 1948, which was after modern fire-fighting techniques were employed on a large scale.
Prior to that there were events (and periods) where it was unquestionably more smoky than it is currently. (i.e., Yacolt Fire of 1902)

PNAS wrote:
Humans have a broad influence on fire through intentional or accidental ignitions, exclusion (e.g., suppression and fuel alteration from grazing), and indirectly through climate change.

So.... humans were influencing climate change prior to the pre-Columbian era, when we know they were doing all kinds of burning on the North American continent?

PNAS wrote:
Fire patterns during the 20th century for example show that large fire years are associated with a strong, persistent trough over the northeastern Pacific Ocean and an associated ridge over the West Coast, which leads to subsidence and thus dry conditions in all western U.S. forests (23). Years with few fires are associated with a weakened Aleutian Low, high sea surface temperatures in the central North Pacific, a stronger-than-normal jet stream, and low geopotential heights that combine to produce wet conditions in the West (4).

Humans weren't even aware there were "troughs" or "high pressure ridges" until the Norwegians gained some rudimentary understanding of what was going on in the atmosphere during the early years of WWII.
Nobody knew there was a "jet stream" until the Americans started bombing Japan during WWII.

None of the speculation (or conclusions) in the paper prior to the last couple hundred years say much that we didn't already know, and to draw conclusions about long-term "patterns" in fire regime history based on only 70 (or 150 or 200) years of data speaks volumes as to what appears to be the overall "theme" here: that "climate change" is somehow the primary driver of the recent increase in wildfire events in the Western US.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5228 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 6:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
gb wrote:
It certainly hasn't been smoky like this in the Pacific Northwest in the last 70 years.

True, but 70 years is only back to 1948, which was after modern fire-fighting techniques were employed on a large scale.
Prior to that there were events (and periods) where it was unquestionably more smoky than it is currently. (i.e., Yacolt Fire of 1902)

PNAS wrote:
Humans have a broad influence on fire through intentional or accidental ignitions, exclusion (e.g., suppression and fuel alteration from grazing), and indirectly through climate change.

So.... humans were influencing climate change prior to the pre-Columbian era, when we know they were doing all kinds of burning on the North American continent?

PNAS wrote:
Fire patterns during the 20th century for example show that large fire years are associated with a strong, persistent trough over the northeastern Pacific Ocean and an associated ridge over the West Coast, which leads to subsidence and thus dry conditions in all western U.S. forests (23). Years with few fires are associated with a weakened Aleutian Low, high sea surface temperatures in the central North Pacific, a stronger-than-normal jet stream, and low geopotential heights that combine to produce wet conditions in the West (4).

Humans weren't even aware there were "troughs" or "high pressure ridges" until the Norwegians gained some rudimentary understanding of what was going on in the atmosphere during the early years of WWII.
Nobody knew there was a "jet stream" until the Americans started bombing Japan during WWII.

None of the speculation (or conclusions) in the paper prior to the last couple hundred years say much that we didn't already know, and to draw conclusions about long-term "patterns" in fire regime history based on only 70 (or 150 or 200) years of data speaks volumes as to what appears to be the overall "theme" here: that "climate change" is somehow the primary driver of the recent increase in wildfire events in the Western US.

I would say the speculation is on your part. The paper statistically correlates forest fires over the past three thousand years with drought conditions which is obviously not surprising. The paper clearly states the human connection since the latter part of the 1850's, first more likely with increasing fire starts (also recall the prehistoric Native American connection), and post 1910 with suppression efforts. But this and the other cited paper also reference the increase and apparently accelerating trend in wildfires since the mid-1980's. You need only look to US or Canadian records to see this. But also note that wildfire suppression in northern boreal forests was not something  that would affect the statistics because it didn't happen in those forests. In the very modern era efforts are made and clearly still are to control the explosive growth of dangerous wildfires. Subsequently those fires are mostly not as large as fires we know about around the turn of the 20th century. Nonetheless the 1988 Yellowstone fire consumed 800,000 acres despite a work force of 9000 firefighters and the Wallow fire of 2011 in Arizona consumed 538000 acres despite huge efforts to suppress it. Then with major efforts we still get the Mendocino fire which is the largest California fire, and the Redding fire, which was nearly as large. Look back just about two years for Washington's largest fire. Then look at Alaska's largest fire in 2004 (an area that was not managed for fire suppression), or look at British Columbia records and note how much greater was the area burned in 2017 (which was a La Nina year) than preceding years, or look at Siberia where scientists say fires are greater in the last decade than in the last 800 years.

Needless to say all of this occurred not because of fire suppression (perhaps it played a role in the US) but because of drought. Along the west coast, but not Arizona, these big events except in 2017 in British Columbia also correlate with El Nino modoki. But note that this year and last in Washington (and 2015) have been especially bad despite record annual rainfall - the summers have been record dry and record warm and that is true along the whole west coast and in the interior west of the Rockies (record dry and record warm).
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 10104 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 8:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Look back just about two years for Washington's largest fire.

Washington's "Big Fire"

Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests - James K. Agee

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11287 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 11:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
The number of acres burned early in the 20th century absolutely dwarfs when are experiencing recently.   And there has been no increase in the number of fires.  During the 1940s, we got good at suppressing fires (with new technologies such as airplane drops of water/retardant) and the number of fires dropped precipitously, with a modest recent rise (but nothing compared to the 1917-1940 period).


A single outlier + reality = the only 'consensus' which matters

The consistent thing about some folks posts.... is the only sources they won't attack is the ones they already agree with. Let's not pretend this is about merely listening to 'experts' when you're judging 'experts' by shopping for conclusions in order to identify them.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 9150 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 11:53 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
To use the 1988 Yellowstone fires as an example of climate change is not sound.

The forest type burned was Lodgepole Pine.  The pine was over-mature in years and it was time for it to die, as lodgepole does, and I repeat, after around 80 years.  Lodgepole gets old, beetles invade, and something ignites it.  It burns.  It has done so for all its existence because that is how it reproduces.

This is basic forestry.

People who were there in Yellowstone on that fire will say it was totally political.  There was really no way to "fight" it with the weather conditions at the time, but the public wanted something done.  It was good money for the equipment owners and the helicopter companies.  And, those helicopters get paid for sitting around too.  Most folks will say it was a "cluster".

It is also common for fires to do what they want to do no matter how many people are "on the lines".  Perhaps John Wayne would have been able to stop a large fire, but in real life, fires explode and You Do NOT Want To Be In Front Of That Beast.  I've had to sit in a meadow while the lodgepole pine exploded and burned around it.  We waited it out, then after it passed, went back to building line.  That's how it works.  Usually, what puts the fire out, is the fall rains, or snow.  There will be joking about spending Christmas in fire camp, borrowing somebody's kids so you can go home to enroll the kids in school and get a break, or a Christmas tree will pop up in camp--usually in September.  You put in your time, now two weeks, used to be three, go home, rest up, return and it goes on until Fall, or late Fall.  Yellowstone ended in a snow storm.


That's real life, not a thesis.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 10104 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 1:05 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
The consistent thing about some folks posts.... is the only sources they won't attack is the ones they already agree with. Let's not pretend this is about merely listening to 'experts' when you're judging 'experts' by shopping for conclusions in order to identify them.

A few decades ago, in "The Forum" (which was an offshoot of the "Est Training"), they told us "If you look hard enough for something, you will find it."
It doesn't matter what it is - if you do enough digging, eventually you will find what you're looking for.

I originally included a couple comments in my post just above, and then removed them because.... what's the point?
The fact is, we've had much larger fire events in the Western US (and in Western Washington) than have been seen at any time during the 20th (or 19th or 21st) century, and there are documented instances where the skies were much smokier than anything anyone alive today has ever seen.
I suppose, however, that because those aren't documented in some peer-reviewed *.pdf file they're not as valid as some contemporary hack job attempting to draw lines of "cause and effect" between wildfire events and "global warming".

I suppose the next thing I'll be hearing is that my ice cream is melting because of global warming, right?

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5228 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 3:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
The consistent thing about some folks posts.... is the only sources they won't attack is the ones they already agree with. Let's not pretend this is about merely listening to 'experts' when you're judging 'experts' by shopping for conclusions in order to identify them.

I definitely agree that you have this problem. My sources are Wildfire Service of British Columbia, US Interagency statistics, and papers submitted and peer reviewed within the past two years to the National Academy of Sciences. Of course those people lie through their teeth - obviously - why wouldn't they? They are part of the great big conspiracy of the Deep State. wink.gif

This graph is from another obviously unreliable source, Wildfire Today.

US Wildfire statistics 1990-2017

When Goat posts a graph dating back to the early 1900's he is posting about an era where fighting fires was not done and technology and manpower were also not available. Fires were often overwhelming.

It also diminishes the significance of fire acreage burned and a clear upward trend that began to be seen in the mid-1980's by relative scale. That acreage burned today is not as great as it was way back when (and were the acreages accurately evaluated before satellites? which is a different question) while man in the US and Canada makes a considerable effort not to let the fires become as devastating as they might. I cited the Yellowstone fire of 1988 at 800,000 acres as an example and realize that that is despite a workforce of 9000 firefighters who were trying to control the fire. The last time I looked at the Redding Fire which as I recall was 277,000 acres there were 2700 firefighters and the Calfire reports indicated the percent of the perimeter contained. Do you know what contained means or is that above your pay grade.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5228 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 4:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
To use the 1988 Yellowstone fires as an example of climate change is not sound.

The forest type burned was Lodgepole Pine.  The pine was over-mature in years and it was time for it to die, as lodgepole does, and I repeat, after around 80 years.  Lodgepole gets old, beetles invade, and something ignites it.  It burns.  It has done so for all its existence because that is how it reproduces.

This is basic forestry.

People who were there in Yellowstone on that fire will say it was totally political.  There was really no way to "fight" it with the weather conditions at the time, but the public wanted something done.  It was good money for the equipment owners and the helicopter companies.  And, those helicopters get paid for sitting around too.  Most folks will say it was a "cluster".

I was climbing in the Tetons when the Yellowstone fire erupted and saw how much it moved (several miles) the first day or two from the position of the smoke columns. But, I think it is dishonest to pretend that the firefighters were not doing their best to control the fires perimeter. I recall from the local Jackson newspaper that they were setting backfires.

Edited to add from Wikipedia:

Quote:
Yellowstone fires of 1988
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Yellowstone fires of 1988
Fire near Old Faithful Complex 2.jpg
Fires approach the Old Faithful Complex on September 7, 1988
Location Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
Statistics[1]
Total fires 250[2]
Cost >$120 million (1988 USD)[3][4][nb 1]
Date(s) June 14, 1988 – November 18, 1988[5]
Burned area 793,880 acres (3,213 km2)[1]
Cause 42 by lightning, 9 by humans
Fatalities 2 civilians
Non-fatal injuries Unknown
The Yellowstone fires of 1988 collectively formed the largest wildfire in the recorded history of Yellowstone National Park in the United States. Starting as many smaller individual fires, the flames quickly spread out of control due to drought conditions and increasing winds, combining into one large conflagration which burned for several months. The fires almost destroyed two major visitor destinations and, on September 8, 1988, the entire park closed to all non-emergency personnel for the first time in its history.[6] Only the arrival of cool and moist weather in the late autumn brought the fires to an end. A total of 793,880 acres (3,213 km2), or 36 percent of the park was affected by the wildfires.[1]

Thousands of firefighters fought the fires, assisted by dozens of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft which were used for water and fire retardant drops. At the peak of the effort, more than 9,000 firefighters were assigned to the park. With fires raging throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and other areas in the western United States, the staffing levels of the National Park Service and other land management agencies were inadequate for the situation; more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel were soon brought in to assist in wildfire suppression efforts. The firefighting effort cost $120 million ($250 million in 2018).[3] Losses to structures were minimized by concentrating firefighting efforts near major visitor areas, keeping property damage down to $3 million ($6 million as of 2018).[4] No firefighters died while fighting the Yellowstone fires, though there were two fire-related deaths outside the park.

Before the late 1960s, fires were generally believed to be detrimental for parks and forests, and management policies were aimed at suppressing fires as quickly as possible. However, as the beneficial ecological role of fire became better understood in the decades before 1988, a policy was adopted of allowing natural fires to burn under controlled conditions, which proved highly successful in reducing the area lost annually to wildfires.

In contrast, in 1988, Yellowstone was overdue for a large fire, and, in the exceptionally dry summer, the many smaller "controlled" fires combined. The fires burned discontinuously, leaping from one patch to another, leaving intervening areas untouched. Intense fires swept through some regions, burning everything in their paths. Tens of millions of trees and countless plants were killed by the wildfires, and some regions were left looking blackened and dead. However, more than half of the affected areas were burned by ground fires, which did less damage to hardier tree species. Not long after the fires ended, plant and tree species quickly reestablished themselves, and natural plant regeneration has been highly successful.

The Yellowstone fires of 1988 were unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service, and many questioned existing fire management policies. Media accounts of mismanagement were often sensational and inaccurate, sometimes wrongly reporting or implying that most of the park was being destroyed. While there were temporary declines in air quality during the fires, no adverse long-term health effects have been recorded in the ecosystem and contrary to initial reports, few large mammals were killed by the fires, though there has been a reduction in the number of moose which has yet to rebound.




Quote:
It is also common for fires to do what they want to do no matter how many people are "on the lines".  Perhaps John Wayne would have been able to stop a large fire, but in real life, fires explode and You Do NOT Want To Be In Front Of That Beast.  I've had to sit in a meadow while the lodgepole pine exploded and burned around it.  We waited it out, then after it passed, went back to building line.  That's how it works.  Usually, what puts the fire out, is the fall rains, or snow.  There will be joking about spending Christmas in fire camp, borrowing somebody's kids so you can go home to enroll the kids in school and get a break, or a Christmas tree will pop up in camp--usually in September.  You put in your time, now two weeks, used to be three, go home, rest up, return and it goes on until Fall, or late Fall.  Yellowstone ended in a snow storm.

That may be and it was windy when the fire first erupted. It is obvious that fires can still be overwhelming. But the Ferguson fire is an entirely different example. When I last looked, that fire had consumed just under 100,000 acres and was 97% contained. Man successfully intervened to hold a perimeter and the fire has burned down. If you think rain stopped the spread, think again. It hasn't rained in Northern California in an age.

Edited - current situation Ferguson Fire:
Quote:
SUMMARY

The Ferguson Fire started on Friday night, July 13 at 9:36 PM in the South Fork Merced River drainage on Sierra National Forest. In the steep, rugged terrain, with scarcely any road access and a heavy presence of beetle-killed trees, firefighters knew it would be more than a challenge to contain.

In the first 24 hours, it had grown to 828 acres, as management of the fire was taken over by the Southern Central Sierra Interagency Management Team Type 2 and an incident command post was set up at Ahawahnee Hills Regional Park near Oakhurst, California. Under unified command between the U.S. Forest Service, Cal Fire, and the Mariposa County Sheriff, the community of Jerseydale among others were evacuated. Also on the second day of the fire, heavy equipment operator Braden Varney from the Cal Fire Madera-Mariposa-Merced unit was tragically killed in a bulldozer rollover accident while constructing line in a steep canyon.

One week later, management of the fire transitioned on July 19 to a Type 1 team, California Interagency Incident Management Team 4. Yosemite National Park joined the Forest Service, Cal Fire, and the Sheriff under unified command. On July 20, the communities of Old El Portal, Rancheria Flat, Foresta, and Yosemite View Lodge were put under mandatory evacuation. The following day, Yosemite West and Anderson Valley area were evacuated.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and Congressman Tom McClintock, CA-4 (R) paid a visit on July 21 to express their support.

Old Yosemite Road was evacuated on July 22. Some specific areas within the communities surrounding the fire started to be allowed to return to their homes, and others continued to be evacuated. From July 24 to 31, many communities and subdivisions including Mariposa Pines, Jerseydale, Ponderosa Basin, Lushmeadows, and others were advised of mandatory evacuations and repopulations.

A memorial service for Braden Varney was held on July 23 in Modesto, California.

By July 28, the fire grew to 42,017 acres, and the following day another horrible tragedy happened: Captain Brian Hughes of the Arrowhead Hotshots from Sequoia & Kings National Parks was struck by a snag tree and killed. A memorial service was held for Brian Hughes on August 4, 2018 in Fresno, California.

Firefighters completed firing operations from Henness Ridge to the Merced River on the Sierra National Forest on July 27, and steadily made progress on containment lines. The fire weather transitioned from moderate to extreme pushing the flame front across Glacier Point Road and closed all access to Badger Pass. Wawona was evacuated on August 1, while El Portal was repopulated on August 2. On August 3 the residents of Yosemite Valley were evacuated and the Park Service closed it to the public due to multiple hazards from firefighters working in the area. The Highway 140 corridor was also closed that day.

Fire crews at the Badger Pass camp sheltered in place on August 4, as extreme fire behavior continued.

On August 5, the National Park Service closed Yosemite National Park indefinitely. Firefighters conducted strategic firing operations off the Foresta and Big Oak Flat roads, keeping the fire from spreading into the community of Foresta and access to and from Badger was restored.

As the new week began on August 6, the weather moderated which gave firefighters the opportunity to reinforce containment lines, mop-up hot spots, and complete firing operations along Wawona Road. Along the southern portions of Wawona Road, firing operations continued south of Chinquapin to prevent it from entering further into Yosemite National Park. Air inversions lessened, which allowed large interior islands to burn off quickly. Wawona residents were now safe to return to their homes, however several road closures continued due to road hazards.

The residents of Yosemite West were allowed to return on August 7. By now, most of the residents were allowed to return to their homes, and those living in Yosemite Valley were the last to return. Throughout this fire, firefighters worked diligently night and day to achieve containment objectives without compromising safety and getting residents back into their homes as quickly as possible.

The closure of Yosemite National Park had a local and global impact on those who had planned to visit during the active life of the fire. Economically, businesses were impacted in the gateway communities who depend on the summer tourist season to sustain them throughout the year. The impacts of smoke in the Yosemite Valley, Merced Grove, and other areas will continue to impact those who live and visit the Sierra National Forest, Stanlislaus National Forest, and Yosemite National Park.

Several community meetings were held for the residents of Mariposa, El Portal, Wawona, Groveland, Yosemite Valley, and Oakhurst during the most active times of the fire. Ferguson fire public information staff provided information at farmers markets, CASA street fair in Mariposa, and presented at a well-known climber's seminar in Groveland.

There is a lot of work during post-fire rehabilitation to curtail erosion and other devastating effects to natural resources from fire suppression efforts. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) teams have started surveying burned areas to determine methods of erosion control measures.

Full containment was expected on Wednesday, August 22, however on Saturday evening, August 18, the fire was 100% contained. Interior parts of the forest will continue to smolder and burn for some time, causing lingering smoke.

CURRENT SITUATION:
The Ferguson Fire is now at 96,901 acres with 100% containment and 352 personnel currently engaged on the fire. During the most critical time in the fire, over 3,000 people were assigned to the incident from all over the world. There have been 2 fatalities and 19 injuries. 10 structures have been destroyed.

and the Carr Fire from Cal Fire:

Quote:
Carr Fire Incident Information:
Last Updated: August 26, 2018 7:13 am
Date/Time Started: July 23, 2018 1:15 pm
Administrative Unit: Unified Command: CAL FIRE Shasta-Trinity Unit, US Forest Service and NPS Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
County: Shasta County,Trinity County
Location: Hwy 299 and Carr Powerhouse Rd, Whiskeytown
Acres Burned - Containment: 229,651 acres - 95% contained
Structures Destroyed: 1,079 residences, 22 commercial structures, 503 outbuildings destroyed - 190 residences, 26 commercial structures, and 61 outbuildings damaged
Evacuations: 8/26/2018 PM - See the current Carr Fire Incident Update for the latest information on evacuations and road closures.
Road Closures: See Incident update linked above
Injuries: 3 firefighter fatalites
Cause: Mechanical Failure of a Vehicle
Cooperating Agencies: PG&E, CHP, CAL OES, Bureau of Land Management, CCC, CDCR
Total Fire Personnel: 724
Total Fire Engines: 23
Total Fire Crews: 10
Total Helicopters: 1
Total Dozers: 65
Total Water Tenders: 44
Incident Management Team: CAL FIRE IMT#1
Long/Lat: -122.62357/40.65428
Conditions: Firefighters will continue to extinguish interior hotspots and secure the containment lines. Fire suppression repair is ongoing. Residents and the public are able to travel along State Route 299, however, they are asked to drive safely as fire crews and emergency personnel are still working in the area.
Sign up for Carr Fire News Releases here.

Carr Fire Structure Status Map

Phone Numbers (530) 225-2510 (Carr Fire Information Line )
Phone Numbers (530) 448-2466 (Carr Fire Media Line )
Phone Numbers (530) 734-8762 (Carr Fire Fatality Information Line ) 

The Mendocino fire is at 392,000 acres and is 67% contained.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5228 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 4:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
gb wrote:
Look back just about two years for Washington's largest fire.

Washington's "Big Fire"

Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests - James K. Agee

The Big Fire is quite an interesting story and I think I read where you had posted it before. Obviously once the fire got going there was no way Native Americans were going to stop it. That just took luck and weather.

The book looks interesting but I do note it was published in 1993 which is now starting to look like ancient history.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 10104 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 6:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
The book looks interesting but I do note it was published in 1993 which is now starting to look like ancient history.

Well... it's entirely up to you as to whether or not you choose to blow off the de facto definitive source on fire regime history of Pacific Northwest forests.

gb wrote:
The Big Fire is quite an interesting story and I think I read where you had posted it before.

Yeah.. I posted it in the "Let's burn all the trees!" thread several years ago, along with links to several other papers which provide detailed information regarding the use of fire by Native Americans, something which you apparently are willfully choosing to ignore or discount the significance of because it doesn't fit your narrative.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
FiresideChats
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 279 | TRs
Location: San Juan Islands
FiresideChats
  Top

Member
PostSun Aug 26, 2018 7:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
If you think the problem isn't global warming but past fire management, you need go no further than the increase in fire acreage burned in the boreal forests of Western Canada where management and control of fires was not historically done. They're seeing the same increase. And then, of course, there is the 6 million acre wildfire in Alaska in around 2004.....it wasn't apparently controlled because it threatened no human populations

The situation is certainly complex. As a gross amateur (history and English teacher) I have "heard" the the Arctic and northern regions generally are warming much more than other areas of the world. So it is reasonable to qualify any data and consider other uncontrolled factors. For instance, if the northern boreal is warming at 4 times the rate of Washington forests (totally making that up for argument's sake) and they are experiencing a roughly comparable rate of increase in acres burned, we immediately ask why they are not in sync based on the rate of increased warming. But would a fourfold increase in temperature lead to a fourfold increase in acres burned with no anthropogenic pressure? Almost certainly NO, right? So how would we control for this?

How could we really know for sure on that data point? How can we quantify the effectiveness of fire suppression? I would argue that we absolutely cannot say what would have happened to a fire without human intervention. I simply do not believe that we can know the answer to that question.

That leaves us speculating and guessing.

I personally GUESS, but do not claim to know that there is a gradual, but significant increase in the summer warm and dry conditions that correlate to receding Cascade glaciers and a shift in our forests to having more Coastal/Cascade forests experiencing fire-prone conditions. I would predict that we will lose more old growth more often as the climate slowly warms, unless firefighting technologies and commitment increases to off-set the increase.

That also sounds good to me until I consider something like this fascinating primer on the complexity of forest ecology: Biodiversity of B.C.

It's as complicated as a good rom-com.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Long-term Perspective on Wildfires in the Western USA
  Happy Birthday marzsit, NacMacFeegle!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy