Chaparral Wisdom
To celebrate the magic and beauty of Nature & the chaparral
Myths persist about wildfires in Southern California
There are a number of serious misconceptions about wildland fire in a 10/27/13 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune (Forests Healing Slowly From Cedar Fire) about the 2003 Cedar Fire.
1. The Cedar Fire was not the largest forest fire in California history. The largest wildfire in California history was the 1889 Santiago Canyon Fire. This is a well known fact in the fire science community and could have been discovered by typing into Google, “largest fire in California.” The Cedar Fire also wasn’t a “forest” fire. Except for a few areas in Cuyamaca, nearly all that burned was chaparral. This is an important distinction because the public has a difficult time understanding that fire acts differently in various ecosystems. More on the Santiago Canyon Fire here.
2. Fires in southern California do not “naturally” burn in a “patchwork pattern.” Chaparral has a crown fire regime. When it burns, especially during Santa Ana wind conditions, it naturally burns intensely, over large areas, and leaves behind little more than a moonscape. The notion that the way the Cedar Fire burned was somehow unnatural, as the quoted State Parks representative believes, is not supported by the last 20 years of research. The papers explaining this can be found here.
Also, the article leads the reader to think that the ceanothus currently growing in Cuyamaca is doing so as some kind of invading, unnatural “monoculture.” This is a value-laden forester’s perspective, one that places greater value on timber than the natural regeneration process of a post-fire environment. It is the same perspective that has led State Parks to conduct extremely damaging “reforestation” projects.
The quotes you used from the USFS representative apply to dry ponderosa pine forests in the southwest, not the mixed conifer forests in Cuyamaca. There is not enough science to support the notion that past fire suppression was responsible for what happened during the Cedar Fire in Cuyamaca. For reference, much of Cuyamaca burned in the 1889 Fire in the same manner it did during the 2003 Cedar Fire. This was long before the era of fire suppression.
It would have been helpful to double check these perspectives with the lead fire scientist you did interview, Dr. Alex Syphard. She has done extensive research on fires in southern California and is quite familiar with the latest science. The suggestion that there is a “fire deficient” in our region or that chaparral is supposed to burn in a “patchwork” is contradicted by what Dr. Syphard was quoted as saying later in the article.
Although it was good that Dr. Syphard’s comments were included, the average reader will likely still come away with the notion that chaparral needs more fire due to past fire suppression impacts. There is zero evidence for such a perspective. In fact, fire suppression has actually protected our native shrublands from too much fire. Dr. Syphard’s quoted statement also supported this. More here.
When it comes to fire, communicating the science properly to the public is essential because misconceptions not only lead to damaging land use practices, but can also encourage actions that increase fire risk in both human and natural communities.
Addendum: Another bit of mythology that you’ll probably stumble upon is the photo below. It is NOT a photo of the Cedar Fire as is often claimed. It’s actually a photo of the 2003 Old Fire, taken by Chris Doolittle from his backyard looking up Highway 330 in San Bernardino.
The Rim Fire did not “kill everything”
It’s time to replace the incorrect “forest fires kill everything” notion reflected in the LA Times article on the Rim Fire (9/24/13) with what actually happens. A burned forest is full of life-in-reserve. It will recover despite our hand wringing.
It was gratifying to read a clear explanation at the end of the article of the factors that led to the Rim Fire: past logging, climate, and to a minor extent, past fire suppression. It was also good to see mentioned that intense fires such as this are not abnormal. We only wish these points had been mentioned at the beginning. As a consequence, it is likely the main take away for the average reader will be that this fire “killed everything,” the soil was “cooked,” the charred trees have “no value,” and if we don’t do something soon, the landscape will “permanently convert to chaparral.”
Such statements are based on outdated perspectives, mainly that a forest has no value unless it can be logged. For example, charred trees have tremendous value as habitat-rich building blocks for a recovering forest. Despite the heat, the soil will be fine and the sediment that reaches the streams will introduce a rich variety of nutrients to the aquatic environment. To warn that “if we don’t intervene, it will convert to brush,” indicates that there is a clear misunderstanding about natural, post-fire processes.
How did the forest ever survive without us?
Photo below: the remarkable recovery since the 1988 Yellowstone Fires. The careers of a number of land managers were ruined because of the political pressure and hype about how the Yellowstone Fires were the fault of the fire service, past fire suppression, and that the park had been “destroyed.” Nothing could have been further from the truth. Unfortunately, we haven’t learned. The misconceptions continue with the Rim Fire.
Silver Fire Defies Popular Beliefs About Wildfire
Silver Fire Defies Popular Beliefs About Wildfire
by Burning Within the Deadly 2006 Esperanza Fire Scar
According to conventional wisdom, the seven-year-old vegetation
was not supposed to burn
SAN DIEGO, Calif. – Defying the fundamental assumption underlying Cal Fire’s new vegetation treatment proposal (that older “overgrown” vegetation is the cause of large wildfires), the devastating Silver Fire near Banning, California, burned through invasive weeds and young, desert chaparral recovering from the deadly 2006 Esperanza Fire (see map below). Such high fire frequency will lead to the spread of more weeds and the loss of native chaparral.
Proponents of backcountry vegetation treatments have maintained that the cause of large wildfires is unnatural “fuel” build up due to past fire suppression efforts. Younger fuels, they maintain, will not carry a fire. For example, in commenting on the July 2013 Mountain Fire near Idyllwild, UC Riverside geographer, Dr. Richard Minnich, maintained that allowing fires to consume as many acres as possible would increase the protection of nearby communities for fifty years (Press Enterprise 7/18/13). The loss of 26 homes and the burning of young vegetation by the Silver Fire contradicts Dr. Minnich’s contention that much of southern California is in pretty good shape because older vegetation burned off during a spate of wildfires over the past decade (KPCC 8/10/13).
While sounding intuitively correct, such fuel-focused perspectives are not supported by the most recent scientific research. With a rapidly drying climate and an increasing population causing more ignitions, whether the fuel be weedy grasses, young or old native shrubs, or trees, southern California wildfires will likely continue to be large and intense.
Like earthquakes, large wildland fires in southern California are inevitable. Instead of trying to prevent them by clearing large areas of backcountry habitat, we need to use strategies that have been proven to be the most effective in protecting lives, property, and the natural environment from wildland fire. Namely, create communities that are firesafe through hazard relevant zoning, fire resistant construction and retrofits, appropriate defensible space, and strategic fuel breaks (within 1,000 feet of homes) in conjunction with firefighter safety zones. For those communities in indefensible locations, evacuate the residents, then focus firefighting resources on communities that are defensible. Such an approach needs to be incorporated into Cal Fire’s proposed Vegetation Treatment Plan.
Additional information regarding the most recent science on fire is available on our website.