Well sure, but it's all part of the process of renewal. Nothing will grow in 10 years. But in 100+ years, it will regenerate. Just pointing out. I think these fires suck, too. Also, burnt out areas clearly don't look as pretty as the Cascades or anything, but they have a beauty to them as well, especially in light of the natural regenerative process they ultimately encourage.
Depends on species and burn severity. Lodgepole Pine is made to come back quickly after a high severity burn. Ponderoso Pine, not so much. A high severity (nuked) burn in Pondo could take 500+ years for the seed to spread naturally and the trees to come back across the whole area, but Pondos are more fire resilient than most trees and can withstand moderate burns fairly well. Aspen regenerate like crazy after a fire. If there are even a few aspen in a burned area, there will be gobs more in 30 years along with lots of deer who grow fat on the aspen shoots and lions who grow fat on the fat deer. Plus, there are differences in climate. A burn in AZ is not going to respond like a burn in the Cascades. Obviously, the more precip you get, the more the growth you get.
Not natural renewal -- the burns we are seeing are much more intense because we have prevented natural fires for so long. Some areas of Austin are way overdue for a massive burn -- especially with all the cedar that has been allowed to grow unchecked.
In 100 years, it should regenerate, but not always. Reference this doc http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_046100.pdf) which states: "Fire can effectively sterilize soils by destroying the microbial populations and seeds stored in the soils and by inhibiting infiltration. The latter happens under hydrophobic conditions and when ash mobilized by raindrop impact clogs and/or seals surface soil pores, but these conditions are all reversible over time. High temperatures that alter soil physical and chemical properties can also inhibit plant growth; these changes are generally not reversible."
Hey Rimrocker, you guys run bravely into pure hell, and there is not enough admiration in the world for you and what you do, seriously. Be careful. Question: is it looking like the land west of 24 is going to make it through without getting engulfed in flames? I know that some people west of 24 just got the mandatory evac notices, but I am still hoping against hope..
agreed. great info. Moon, I'd still think the words "not reversible" are a little harsh. The implication is that nothing will regenerate there ever again. Maybe that's what they're saying, but that's hard to believe.
Nero: Thanks, but I'm exclusively rear echelon at my age and weight. Looking at the map here: http://www.inciweb.org/incident/2929/ It looks like they have a decent chance to keep the fire north of 24. I was hoping they could keep it south of the reservoirs and Monument Creek, but that looks iffy at best. It's going to want to push to the NW, so anything that pops out of the northern flank will work towards the eastern aspect of the Front Range. Those spots north of Rampart Reservoir are troubling. Based on the map here: https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/ftp/InciWe...canyon-fire/picts/pict-20120627-130026-0.jpeg You can see they are building divisions way out in front of the fire. Without being privy to the discussions, it either means they expect the fire to keep growing over the next few days or that they have few good options to create a defensible line.
Also, regarding hydrophobic soils, a good freeze-thaw series can crack it open and speed up the process.
Yeah, "not reversible" is a bit too definitive for nature. Cuz nature is a bad mofo and will do what it wants....when it wants and anyway it wants. It's a disturbing and depressing thing watching people's houses burn up. There's not anyone in this town that's untouched by all this. My hat goes off to all the firefighters, law enforcement and forest service people that are busting their ass 16 hrs a day to choke the hell of this b*stard fire and kill it.
Denver Post photos of the fire... worth checking out. http://blogs.denverpost.com/capture...ires-waldo-canyon-fire-colorado-springs/5732/
A lot of backroom chatter about some of the stuff that happened on the Waldo Canyon Fire has been going on since the summer. Here's an article by a local paper on the city's response: http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/misfire/Content?oid=2598215 From the article: The delegation mentioned is what National Incident Management Teams (IMT) get when we show up to deal with a large fire. We work for all the jurisdictions affected with the understanding that we will combine forces if necessary. The delegation and ancillary documents define the strategy for suppression and the concerns of all present. If you have a major jurisdiction that is not part of the delegation, it makes it tough to coordinate and plan. The reason we came up with the Incident Command System and the reason Homeland Security requires it is to avoid this very thing. If you are only concerned about your city limits, it makes it difficult to put the larger fire out or integrate your forces with the larger effort. To top it off, the city apparently did not have a presence at the briefings given by the incident management team, so they had sketchy info on suppression efforts, weather, and fire behavior. The upshot is, other firefighting crews were not allowed within the city limits, though it appears some went anyway when things got really bad. As one Fire guy wrote: Another guy from the same link makes another point: Here are some of the other findings in the article: i don't want to go into great detail here, but all of those things are pretty big failings in my line of work. And unfortunately, not uncommon. While Homeland Security requires all local and state responders to implement the incident command system, too many only pay it lip service and shoehorn their current organizational structure into ICS, which rarely works out well. There is also a terrible lack of planning, particularly where large fires have not been a big deal. I saw this in TX during 2011 and last year all along with Front Range of CO and into WY. Nothing I experienced was as bad as this apparently was, but some of it was damn difficult to deal with... and with global warming changing the weather and fire behavior, I expect to see a lot more unprepared areas that never burned much have to confront the reality of a wildland fire. Unfortunately, I think I'm in a secure line of work.
