2020 Wildfire Season

[Norseman]

smoke approaches. pink/orange to the south of the sound... hope it clears out faster than the last round

[bodywhomper]

IME - if the resource warrants it, they will assign a fire qualified resource advisor to work with the fireline crews to minimize impacts as best as possible. This might mean taking more acreage or constructing handline instead of dozer line.

I know in N Cal (Happy Camp area), they have archaeological resources dotting the ridgelines, so lots of handline was constructed on ridges or surveys were made instead of just dropping in a dozer line.

Thanks for those details.

Since I posted, I heard that state parks employees have been pulling artifacts from jack London SP museum.

I’ve also heard that calfire has archaeologists that can assist in locating dozer lines based on known resources.

My point is that the amount of work on the ground that gets rapidly done during fire suppression activities is mind blowing compared to similar activities planned in a non-fire suppression environment, which seems to take multiple years of planning, review, and approval.

[splat]

we haven't had any weather related blackouts, just 2 blackouts for a few hours, presumably the usual barbecued squirrel. Truckee isn't on the CA grid. It gets power over the Sierra Pacific lines, from NV Energy I think, and others.

Duh. I know that, Foolish me.

PS-

[altasnob]

As far as all the people living in the woods in California--a lot of them are there because they can't afford to live anywhere else.

You really think it is poor people who are driving the expansion into the wildland urban interface? From my own observation in places like Bend, Lake Wenatchee/Leavenworth, Methow Valley, Salt Lake City area, Reno/Tahoe, the entire state of Montana, the new development in highly fire prone areas is not by the poor, but by the upper class, with a lot being vacation homes. Wildland fire fighters put their life on the line to protect second homes that get used a week out of the year. The poor schmucks in the cities are subsidizing the second homes of the wealthy.

Below is an article on a fire in Washington in 2015. There was a remote possibility the fire was going to cross over the ridge and then go down into the the Lake Wenatchee and Fish Lake area. This area is filled with vacation homes owned by upper management at Microsoft and Amazon. Some of the most high priced forest land in the West. The Forest Service has the ability to cut fire lines in National Forests (and I believe even in Wilderness areas) if they think it will stop a fire. The Forest Service did that here, even though the evidence was not strong that the fire was going to get to these million dollar homes. The claim made was the Forest Service preemptively cut the fire line, even with minimal risk to homes, because it was not just any old homes at risk, but the homes of the elite. An environmental group filed a lawsuit, which got dismissed. But doesn't mean the claim is not true, just that the Forest Service did not do anything illegal. Every year, more and more homes are built in this area and it aint the poor doing it. At some point in time the whole place will be burned the ground (because that is what the East slopes of the Cascades do).

https://projects.seattletimes.com/20...ateral-damage/

[old goat]

More elderly west coast hippies around here than I realized.

[~mikey b]

hey god damn it

[old goat]

You really think it is poor people who are driving the expansion into the wildland urban interface? From my own observation in places like Bend, Lake Wenatchee/Leavenworth, Methow Valley, Salt Lake City area, Reno/Tahoe, the entire state of Montana, the new development in highly fire prone areas is not by the poor, but by the upper class, with a lot being vacation homes. Wildland fire fighters put their life on the line to protect second homes that get used a week out of the year. The poor schmucks in the cities are subsidizing the second homes of the wealthy.

Below is an article on a fire in Washington in 2015. There was a remote possibility the fire was going to cross over the ridge and then go down into the the Lake Wenatchee and Fish Lake area. This area is filled with vacation homes owned by upper management at Microsoft and Amazon. Some of the most high priced forest land in the West. The Forest Service has the ability to cut fire lines in National Forests (and I believe even in Wilderness areas) if they think it will stop a fire. The Forest Service did that here, even though the evidence was not strong that the fire was going to get to these million dollar homes. The claim made was the Forest Service preemptively cut the fire line, even with minimal risk to homes, because it was not just any old homes at risk, but the homes of the elite. An environmental group filed a lawsuit, which got dismissed. But doesn't mean the claim is not true, just that the Forest Service did not do anything illegal. Every year, more and more homes are built in this area and it aint the poor doing it. At some point in time the whole place will be burned the ground (because that is what the East slopes of the Cascades do).

https://projects.seattletimes.com/20...ateral-damage/

I wouldn't say poor people. I would say people who aren't rich . Plenty of wealthy developments in the Truckee area--Lahontan, Old Greenwood, Martis Camp but the places in the Sierra foothills that are burning are not wealthy resort areas--far from it. Median home price in Oroville (near Paradise) is 265K. In Quincy it's 257K. Those may not be Detroit home prices but a lot cheaper than the Bay Area or Sacramento or Tahoe. And the smaller, more remote unincorporated clusters are even cheaper.

I'd like to see data on acreage burned vs elevation. My impression is that while there is certainly plenty of fire risk at 6000+ feet in Norcal, the risk is considerably higher at lower elevations, which are hotter and dry out sooner.

I don't know that much about the coast range fires. The areas around Santa Rosa that have burned in the past and are burning now are basically suburbs, not WUI.

[neufox47]

You really think it is poor people who are driving the expansion into the wildland urban interface? From my own observation in places like Bend, Lake Wenatchee/Leavenworth, Methow Valley, Salt Lake City area, Reno/Tahoe, the entire state of Montana, the new development in highly fire prone areas is not by the poor, but by the upper class, with a lot being vacation homes. Wildland fire fighters put their life on the line to protect second homes that get used a week out of the year. The poor schmucks in the cities are subsidizing the second homes of the wealthy.

Below is an article on a fire in Washington in 2015. There was a remote possibility the fire was going to cross over the ridge and then go down into the the Lake Wenatchee and Fish Lake area. This area is filled with vacation homes owned by upper management at Microsoft and Amazon. Some of the most high priced forest land in the West. The Forest Service has the ability to cut fire lines in National Forests (and I believe even in Wilderness areas) if they think it will stop a fire. The Forest Service did that here, even though the evidence was not strong that the fire was going to get to these million dollar homes. The claim made was the Forest Service preemptively cut the fire line, even with minimal risk to homes, because it was not just any old homes at risk, but the homes of the elite. An environmental group filed a lawsuit, which got dismissed. But doesn't mean the claim is not true, just that the Forest Service did not do anything illegal. Every year, more and more homes are built in this area and it aint the poor doing it. At some point in time the whole place will be burned the ground (because that is what the East slopes of the Cascades do).

https://projects.seattletimes.com/20...ateral-damage/

Poor? No, I don’t think poor people drive any development (unfortunately). But if you go to the foothills and mountains of CA, OR and WA much of it is middle class. Sure there are wealthy spots like Tahoe, but Paradise was mostly middle class retires.

[ill-advised strategy]

IME - if the resource warrants it, they will assign a fire qualified resource advisor to work with the fireline crews to minimize impacts as best as possible. This might mean taking more acreage or constructing handline instead of dozer line.

I know in N Cal (Happy Camp area), they have archaeological resources dotting the ridgelines, so lots of handline was constructed on ridges or surveys were made instead of just dropping in a dozer line.

With this much acreage at once I bet the READs are getting pretty sparse.

[neufox47]

Looks like CA may get some rain next weekend!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[char_]

You really think it is poor people who are driving the expansion into the wildland urban interface? From my own observation in places like Bend, Lake Wenatchee/Leavenworth, Methow Valley, Salt Lake City area, Reno/Tahoe, the entire state of Montana, the new development in highly fire prone areas is not by the poor, but by the upper class, with a lot being vacation homes. Wildland fire fighters put their life on the line to protect second homes that get used a week out of the year. The poor schmucks in the cities are subsidizing the second homes of the wealthy.

Below is an article on a fire in Washington in 2015. There was a remote possibility the fire was going to cross over the ridge and then go down into the the Lake Wenatchee and Fish Lake area. This area is filled with vacation homes owned by upper management at Microsoft and Amazon. Some of the most high priced forest land in the West. The Forest Service has the ability to cut fire lines in National Forests (and I believe even in Wilderness areas) if they think it will stop a fire. The Forest Service did that here, even though the evidence was not strong that the fire was going to get to these million dollar homes. The claim made was the Forest Service preemptively cut the fire line, even with minimal risk to homes, because it was not just any old homes at risk, but the homes of the elite. An environmental group filed a lawsuit, which got dismissed. But doesn't mean the claim is not true, just that the Forest Service did not do anything illegal. Every year, more and more homes are built in this area and it aint the poor doing it. At some point in time the whole place will be burned the ground (because that is what the East slopes of the Cascades do).

https://projects.seattletimes.com/20...ateral-damage/

Have you been to La Pine, Deschutes River Woods, Prineville, Mill City, Gates or any of a number of Oregon towns that are not attracting a massive influx of rich people?

(I don't have any stats to back this up, but certainly would be interested to see a more detailed analysis)

[PB]

Fingers crossed for WET lightening.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You really think it is poor people who are driving the expansion into the wildland urban interface? From my own observation in places like Bend, Lake Wenatchee/Leavenworth, Methow Valley, Salt Lake City area, Reno/Tahoe, the entire state of Montana, the new development in highly fire prone areas is not by the poor, but by the upper class, with a lot being vacation homes. Wildland fire fighters put their life on the line to protect second homes that get used a week out of the year. The poor schmucks in the cities are subsidizing the second homes of the wealthy.

Below is an article on a fire in Washington in 2015. There was a remote possibility the fire was going to cross over the ridge and then go down into the the Lake Wenatchee and Fish Lake area. This area is filled with vacation homes owned by upper management at Microsoft and Amazon. Some of the most high priced forest land in the West. The Forest Service has the ability to cut fire lines in National Forests (and I believe even in Wilderness areas) if they think it will stop a fire. The Forest Service did that here, even though the evidence was not strong that the fire was going to get to these million dollar homes. The claim made was the Forest Service preemptively cut the fire line, even with minimal risk to homes, because it was not just any old homes at risk, but the homes of the elite. An environmental group filed a lawsuit, which got dismissed. But doesn't mean the claim is not true, just that the Forest Service did not do anything illegal. Every year, more and more homes are built in this area and it aint the poor doing it. At some point in time the whole place will be burned the ground (because that is what the East slopes of the Cascades do).

https://projects.seattletimes.com/20...ateral-damage/

Well, as someone who lives on the East slope of the Cascades, I can tell you there are plenty of working class folks, poor even, living around the upper Wenatchee Valley including the Lake Wenatchee/Fish Lake/Plain/Leavenworth Area. There are a lot of wealthy second home owners for sure but there’s a lot of people that live and work in the area.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

My whole point was do those people have to live there? Old Goat was claiming they are too poor to live anywhere else and I was pushing back. Could these working class folks afford to move to Wenatchee or is the Lake Wenatchee/Fish Lake/Plain/Leavenworth Area the cheapest area in that region? There are poor single moms working two jobs living in Wenatchee, not Lake Wenatchee. How many of these folks that live in that area actually work in that area? If they work in that area, great, stay there, fight fires to protect their homes. But I believe the general public contributes an enormous amount of resources to allow people to voluntarily live in these high fire prone areas. All to the detriment of the overall health of the forest. Americans live more spread out and in larger houses than any country on earth. We have it ingrained in our psyche from birth to try to avoid others. Whether it is in the mountains, the beach, or where we chose to live. Our lifestyle is the root cause of these massive wildfires we see today.

[Albeer]

My whole point was do those people have to live there? Old Goat was claiming they are too poor to live anywhere else and I was pushing back. Could these working class folks afford to move to Wenatchee or is the Lake Wenatchee/Fish Lake/Plain/Leavenworth Area the cheapest area in that region? There are poor single moms working two jobs living in Wenatchee, not Lake Wenatchee. How many of these folks that live in that area actually work in that area? If they work in that area, great, stay there, fight fires to protect their homes. But I believe the general public contributes an enormous amount of resources to allow people to voluntarily live in these high fire prone areas. All to the detriment of the overall health of the forest.

Forest health is a human concept and means nothing biologically

[Meadow Skipper]

My whole point was do those people have to live there? Old Goat was claiming they are too poor to live anywhere else and I was pushing back. Could these working class folks afford to move to Wenatchee or is the Lake Wenatchee/Fish Lake/Plain/Leavenworth Area the cheapest area in that region? There are poor single moms working two jobs living in Wenatchee, not Lake Wenatchee. How many of these folks that live in that area actually work in that area? If they work in that area, great, stay there, fight fires to protect their homes. But I believe the general public contributes an enormous amount of resources to allow people to voluntarily live in these high fire prone areas. All to the detriment of the overall health of the forest. Americans live more spread out and in larger houses than any country on earth. We have it ingrained in our psyche from birth to try to avoid others. Whether it is in the mountains, the beach, or where we chose to live. Our lifestyle is the root cause of these massive wildfires we see today.

Ranchers, mill workers, miners, land management agency employees, loggers, some farmers...just a few examples of folks that pretty much “have to live there.” And good luck moving people whose families homesteaded lands. Your Utopian view is just that - utopian, and impractical. Interesting bar or cocktail party talk, but no more than that.

[bodywhomper]

It can’t all fit in one right category, but there are definitely people stuck in the Sierra foothills because of their social/economic standing. Also, plenty of retirees live there (here) because the cost of living is lower (and it’s beautiful).

The destruction/damage in paradise was predictable. I’d been working there for a few years before the fire (and 1.5 years after the fire). The residents let the forest grow up around and through the town. There was not a lot of private or public $$ available for thinning, maintenance, or ordinance enforcement. The entire town was on septic, even commercial areas, because the citizens didn’t/couldn’t pay for a municipal upgrade. They replaced their municipal water board because it had to increase rates to afford an upgrade to their water treatment plant to avoid potential huge fines for violating effluent standards.

The camp fire destroyed over 18000 structures and over 3600 were mobilehomes and almost 300 were multi family structures.

[Meadow Skipper]

I’m not saying that expansion into wildlands shouldn’t be controlled/limited, or that we shouldn’t tax people extra for fire-prone areas, but I’ve heard rural residents complain bitterly about how their taxes go to things they’ll never use like urban rapid transit projects. I don’t have figures, but a balance is hard to figure out.

[Meadow Skipper]

It can’t all fit in one right category, but there are definitely people stuck in the Sierra foothills because of their social/economic standing. Also, plenty of retirees live there (here) because the cost of living is lower (and it’s beautiful).

Yeah, consider the financial difficulties for people that live in Plumas county trying to move to urban areas, just in terms of selling and buying.

[altasnob]

plenty of retirees live there (here) because the cost of living is lower (and it’s beautiful).

If we let the free market control, it would not be cheaper to live in Paradise, CA than in some shitty Bay Area suburb. People living in Paradise are subsidized by those living in the city in a variety of ways. The roads we all pay for to Paradise. The power lines. If I buy a package on Amazon I pay the same shipping in the city that someone pays in Paradise even though it is much more economically efficient for Amazon to deliver to me in the city than to Paradise. This is built into the price I pay. There are no societal benefits to subsidizing retirees in Paradise, so why do we do this?

Wildfires are bad today because we did not let them burn naturally because we had to protect the homes. More homes today in the woods so even more wild fires are stopped and not allowed to burn their natural course. This phenomenon is getting worse, not better.

While I do not doubt that there are poor retirees living in trailer parks in Paradise, CA, there are also poor retirees living in trailer parks in the greater Bay Area. Why do to these poor city retirees have to subsidize those poor Paradise, CA retirees? It would be better for humanity if all these retirees in Paradise moved to the Bay Area. Of course, you, I, anyone reading this rather have a mobile home in Paradise, CA than in a shitty suburb. But that doesn't mean it is good for the collective whole.

I feel the same way about dying timber towns in the PNW. People who live there think they have a right to a livelihood in these towns because previously, we allowed them to cut down trees in the National Forests. Circumstances have changed, but these people refuse to change. I don't blame them for not wanting to move to the suburbs and try to cut it with the rest of the working poor. But tough shit. It's a harsh world.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

My whole point was do those people have to live there? Old Goat was claiming they are too poor to live anywhere else and I was pushing back. Could these working class folks afford to move to Wenatchee or is the Lake Wenatchee/Fish Lake/Plain/Leavenworth Area the cheapest area in that region? There are poor single moms working two jobs living in Wenatchee, not Lake Wenatchee. How many of these folks that live in that area actually work in that area? If they work in that area, great, stay there, fight fires to protect their homes. But I believe the general public contributes an enormous amount of resources to allow people to voluntarily live in these high fire prone areas. All to the detriment of the overall health of the forest. Americans live more spread out and in larger houses than any country on earth. We have it ingrained in our psyche from birth to try to avoid others. Whether it is in the mountains, the beach, or where we chose to live. Our lifestyle is the root cause of these massive wildfires we see today.

Yes they live there and work up valley. Would you have them commute up there for work? It’s cheaper to own or rent a little piece of land with a mobile or cabin than renting or buying in Wenatchee. Most of the full time residents are aware of fire danger and mitigate as necessary, they also contract their services for fire containment and mitigation on private and public lands. They’re people just like you and me, they just don’t want to live in the city. I can relate.

I wanted to address the line of thought you brought up earlier. It’s the large transmission lines that are part of the BPA grid that are most likely to be the cause of wildfires, not the local residential distribution lines.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Buster Highmen]

You really think it is poor people who are driving the expansion into the wildland urban interface? From my own observation in places like Bend, Lake Wenatchee/Leavenworth, Methow Valley, Salt Lake City area, Reno/Tahoe, the entire state of Montana, the new development in highly fire prone areas is not by the poor, but by the upper class, with a lot being vacation homes. Wildland fire fighters put their life on the line to protect second homes that get used a week out of the year. The poor schmucks in the cities are subsidizing the second homes of the wealthy.

A number of the old Seattle counter culture, deadheads, the Old Guard Blue Mooners, and so on we knew moved out to Republic/Tonasket area. Those folks did not have any money, but found places that were affordable to rent or buy and set up businesses and grow ops.

The area was hard hit by fires over the last several years, so while its' true about a lot of wealthy development, that shouldn't overshadow the fact that lots of less well to do folks have hardships out there.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I’m sure Alta knows more about this than people who live here/there.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

Racism also plays a factor. The working poor in the Bay Area are mostly minorities, some first generation Americans, working their ass off to survive in this crazy world. The poor in Paradise, CA, or some dying PNW timber town, are mostly white, living off the government, and more unhealthy than the average American. Not surprising that we subsidize their lifestyle at the expense of the poor minorities in the cities who are actually contributing to society.

[altasnob]

The area was hard hit by fires over the last several years

It wouldn't have been so hard hit if these aging hippies moved to, say, Kent, WA, instead and we let fires in that area burn naturally. So now, every summer, we're stuck with sob stories of people loosing their homes in fire prone areas of the west. It will never end.

The real sad part is these aging hippies who moved out to the forest, and drive their pick up trucks into town daily, have the gall to call themselves environmentalists.