RE: Is water-wise fire foolish?
- Subject: RE: Is water-wise fire foolish?
- From: &* A* O* <s*@gimcw.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:01:31 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
Welcome Ben -
What an interesting and very appropriate topic for this forum!
There has been far too much generalization about what can be done to prevent
fire damage - site specifics always need to be considered, and the specifics
of individual fire events also play an important role.
Fire is a fact of life in most mediterranean climates. The ecology is adapted
to this reality - we should be also. To imagine that somehow we can be 'safe'
from fire danger is foolish.
Living through the Oakland Hills fire, I have some observations.
A friends house, which is still standing, was one of the spots firefighters
chose to make a stand. Their reason for doing so was the protection afforded
by the specific site. This was an older house, stucco with a slate roof. It
was also surrounded by more space than other homes in this very congested,
hilly area where properties were divided and divided again (because of their
high value and desirable views) and homes were often 'too large' for the
property. The garden was full of a diversity if unusual plants, some more
flammable than others, all of it burned, some was lost, some has come back.
The fire was so hot on this property that a greenhouse was reduced to a few
blobs of glass slag, a large tree shredder was completely incinerated (a few
bolts and mechanical parts that fell into the soil were all that remained).
The soil was baked dry and water had to be injected into the subsoil in order
to gradually get it to accept water again.
This garden still has some of the original oaks, which are native to the area.
They survive fire pretty well. Most, if not all, of the pine trees in the
area were destroyed. Some redwoods were scarred, but have come back well.
Acacias started sprouting everywhere - a rare event except for a few of the
weedier types - their seeds lying dormant in the soil until heated by the
fire. This garden had a virtual 'lawn' of purple A. baileyana seedlings -
something I had never seen happen before!
Rebuilding after the Oakland Hills fire was slow, and there are still a few
lots left vacant. But rebuilding has come and now some homes are larger than
before, on the same properties. They ARE generally constructed of more
fire-resistant materials. But the fact remains that this are is perhaps
overbuilt considering the fire danger. The replanted garden vegetation is
diverse, with fewer trees, more 'chaparral-like' plantings.
A friend of mine, who grows plants for habitat restoration in the south of
France, complains about the ubiquitous planting of pine tree in the 'wild'
hills of his area. The government seem to think that fast growing pine
species are the pest way to 'restore' these areas, even though these trees are
not naturally as plentiful as oaks in this area. The pine trees tend to burn
in fires upon maturity, and burn in a hot manner that sets the local ecology
back to 'square one'. Because of this, the mature oak 'garrigue' ecosystem,
which takes decades to develop, has become very rare and possibly endangered.
We have a similar problem locally. Because of the disturbances of urban
development, invasive weeds, and feral animals such as European boars, our own
mature, more fire-resistant, oak woodlands are starting to disappear, and/or
not regenerating. Perhaps there is a similar type of problem in the Southern
parts of our state?
But the real increased fire danger definitely comes from the homes and other
structures we continue to build with impunity all around fire-prone areas.
These are the flammable objects, even with more fire-resistant materials.
Seán A. O'Hara
sean(at)gimcw.org
www.hortulusaptus.com
(ask about mediterranean climate gardening forum)
> Hi Ben
>
> Here?s a site our neighbor created that examines why our part of Fallbrook
> did not burn. HYPERLINK
> "http://tchester.org/fb/fire/071022_sw_rice.html"http://tchester.org/fb/fire
> /071022_sw_rice.html
>
> Overall, the author believes that housing density and whether a nearby fire
> crew decides to take a stand at your house are among the more significant
> determinants of fire susceptibility.
>
> Like Nan I have driven through a firestorm area, and have seen burned plants
> normally thought to be fire resistant, such as agaves and beavertail cactus.
>
> Nancy Mueller
> Fallbrook, CA
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-medit-plants@ucdavis.edu [o*@ucdavis.edu]
> On Behalf Of Ben Wiswall
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: medit-plants@ucdavis.edu
> Subject: Is water-wise fire foolish?
>
>
>
> Hey All,
>
> I'm new to this site, and have lots of questions; hopefully we can generate
> some good discussions on this subject.
>
> First, is water-wise landscaping fire foolish: is a dry garden inherently
> flammable?
>
> Second, where in California are we safe from wildfire?
> Are flat suburbs safe?
> Are flat suburbs safe if they're thick with pine, cedar, cypress, and
> eucalyptus?
>
> Are modern, fire-precautious housing subdivisions safe if:
> slope is 10 degrees? 20 degrees? 30 degrees?
> subdivision is below chaparral?
> subdivision is above chaparral?
> slope faces SW (very dry, low fuel)?
> slope faces NE (moister, denser fuel)?
>
> Are hills ever safe? Is Encino an Oakland fire waiting to happen?
>
> And lastly, plants and plant communities. Conifers are generally bad for
> fire safety,
> but what about clean, moderately irrigated fire-surviving conifers such
> as Coast
> Redwood or Canary Island Pine? Still no good?
>
> And on the subject of plants and plant communities, what about Habitat
> Gardening?
> As our subdivisions march across the land, it makes sense to create
> habitat in our
> own backyards for at least some of the creatures we displace. But this
> generally means
> creating a semi-dry, thickety garden dense with fuel and lots of fire
> ladders. Or does it?
>
> So what do you all think? Let me know!
>
> -Ben Wiswall
