Buy burned land
Tis fire season again here in North America and Europe. From my house in coastal California I grieve every year as more of my favorite forests burn, from British Columbia to California.
There is no end in sight for this transition. So what can we do to at least mitigate the worst of its effects? I think the time to play defense over pure "wilderness" is long gone. The forests that haven't burned are still beautiful, but they're riddled with disease and so overgrown the ecosystems are permanently distorted.
Every year there is less pristine forest and more burned land. I'm a fourth generation Californian and the Portuguese side of the family still owns a ranch in the foothills from 1893. But I own nothing and the prospect of being able to afford land in California has forever been beyond my reach. Burned land needs to be rehabilitated in a thoughtful manner. I'm hoping once my daughter finishes college and our life starts a new chapter, that I can find a few acres where I can make the best environmental impact, such as a headwaters, then invite experts onto the land to teach me how to best heal it.
Every year I have this idea, and every year more areas become available (in the worst sense). I don't need to live on this land. I don't expect it to be much more than grasses and saplings for 20 years. I'd get out to it one or two weekends a month, rent some equipment and hire some folks as I could. I also understand that my original thought that this would be immune from future fire seasons is wrong. But at least the land can be designed to be as fire resistant as possible, with a clear understory and single large trees. And that is another part of the allure. This acreage would come with its own challenges for sure, but in some sense it is a blank slate. The permaculture people could show us how to remediate and reconstruct the land from the bones up.
I know this project would be an aggravating money sink, and even perhaps an unrealistic and irresponsible fantasy by someone untrained in forestry management. But there is so much burned land now. Every year another giant 4% stripe of California goes up in smoke. Yet this idea just doesn't catch on. It entails a lot of patience and work. I know it's not what most people want to hear. They want their idyllic cabin in Tahoe or nothing. But that time is quickly coming to an end and learning how to revive the forests that have been devastated is our only real choice.
Whenever I've tried to get serious about this, though, I learn that there is no market in burned land because there is hardly any profit to be made. No real estate agent that I can find is specializing in this because their clients are having to sell ruined land and burned buildings for pennies on the dollar. I've been advised that the best way is to find a specific spot, do my research, and approach the owner directly. But, again, there is so much burned land now I hardly know where to start. The Santa Cruz Mountains? The Sierra adjacent to Yosemite? Crater Lake in Oregon?
Any thoughts or ideas or resources would be appreciated.
Have you talked to any ecologists about this? Context here, I make tools to help monitor, track, and verify restoration. Lots of what I do has to do with regulatory requirements, and I think the ones that are most relevant to what you're talking about is around restoration of forest after clear cutting. From everything I've seen and heard, every ecosystem is different. In some parts of the state, particularly evergreen forests, the biggest part of the equation is getting out of the way and letting succession happen naturally. Many of the forest restoration folks I speak with say that the areas that they seed or plant trees in - usually clones optimized for growth (both speed and girth) - do no better than areas that they just leave to recover on their own. So if you're buying burned, previous forest stands consider just giving it time to recover.
In other ecosystems, we've actually change the ecotype by removing keystone species or terraforming, such as the emergence modern day ranch land and high density orchards in the central valley that used to be a giant wetland. While we can't individually return the rivers to their natural paths, we can reintroduce species or practices that can add water storage and biodiversity. I worked on a project where a conservation NGO and a land trust partnered to build a fake beaver dam to flood a section of a creek/ravine. They did and it added 25 acres of marsh (which also acts as a firebreak), hugely increasing the biodiversity of the area. Within 2 years a WILD BEAVER found the dam and took up residence!!! I thought that was crazy a rando beaver could just wander up to it and be like "cool, I'll take over" and has begun to expand on the original dam. It's now a self maintaining project that adds benefits to water storage, carbon storage, biodiversity, and fire prevention.
In other areas, intense cattle grazing and introduction of invasive European grass species has suppressed the natural diversity that would have historically been in most areas, reducing the water storage and fire resiliency along with it. So in those areas active restoration of natives like sages, madrones, grasses, and sedges are really helpful. But they also take a ton of management. If you live by the coast you're probably familiar with coastal chaparral. These ecosystems respond well to restoration and could be right up your alley.
I realize I'm kind of rambling here. I think that the question you're asking is awesome and huge and has many moving parts. I guess I'd ask where do you want to make an impact. What do you want to impact - fire prevention, species loss, biodiversity increase, landscape restoration - and start looking there. There are also lots of organizations working in California to try to work with who may know more. I love Blue Forest Conservation, they come up with really interesting, large impact projects and you could support them as an investor.
I love where your head is at and I live in central coastal California as well and would be stoked to talk more about it.
I have a friend who works in conservation and he echoes exactly what you are saying here, it really opened my eyes.
Turns out nature is a lot more complicated than planting 10,000 trees and waiting 10 years.
You really have to know what you're doing, or as you say just leave it be and not let humans near it, for it to actually work.
Yeah, in some cases that can be really damaging. I worked in Ecuador during my undergrad and Greenpeace had come through the area we were in about 5 years prior and planted something outrageous like 20,000 trees. They planted them at 2-3 meter spacing (very close) and had planted Eucalyptus!!! A fucking invasive. I think the idea is that they take off quickly, but it absolutely strangled vegetation in the area. We were doing survey work and as part of the agreement with the local municipality we were asked to cut down any trees that were in our path (about 2 inches thick and 10-20 feet tall at that point). It ended up being back breaking labor to walk 4 steps, cut down a small tree with a machete, walk four steps, cut down a small tree with a machete for 8 to 10 hours a day. We ended up covering only like 0.5 - 1 miles a day compared to our 10-15 miles in the areas where we didn't have to do it.
Sorry old wounds opening up, haha.
How devastatingly frustrating..... That tree planting effort could have been so much more fruitful with a species that fits better...
Do you know what has happened to the rest of the eucalyptus since then? (I'm assuming your group didn't seriously hack down 20k trees by hand?!) Did they take over and become a nuisance, or did the young saplings just not make it at all?
Honestly I have no idea. I didn't use to work in ecology, we were conducting archaeological surveys and hacking out the trees was the compromise the program director negotiated to let us survey the land. I popped onto Google Earth to see if I could find the area, but that was back in 2009 and I'm a little fuzzy on the exact location. It was in the highlands of Ecuador nearish (20 minute drive) from a site called Pambamarca. You've got me curious and I'll see if I can figure it out.
An important note is that gigantic forest fires are part of that default state of wilderness, and part of the reason they've been exceptionally bad has been our suppression of them.
<some made up gut numbers>If we abandoned the west coast entirely, and the whole of it burned to the ground over 10ish years, it would regrow on its own inside of 100ish years if left alone. Because even the worst fires don't destroy everything.
Asterisks on "leave alone" though, because invasive species. It's sad but these days leaving things alone to nature doesn't mean it'll necessarily go back, it might just mean giving free reign to horribly destructive species.
The thing about invasive species is that it’s an entirely arbitrary label. Sure, they may be changing the ecosystem, but the ecosystem is constantly changing anyways. It’s part of being alive.
Hmmm how about "aggressively advantaged species"? I see your point on a technical level but honestly I don't give two pence about technicality when I see the demise of other species happening in the same space.
There was a discussion last week, There Will Be Blood, about culling species and management vs irradication. There's a human side to it, sure. Who are we to pick etc let nature do its thing blah blah
But there is also a reality I see right outside my yard, when it's this one single plant, a turnip, growing 6-8' tall crowding out everything else and choking out other plants like the here-before-them blueberries and cranberries. These berries feed lots of birds and the deer, and they're probably doing something to the soil and the wetlands and a million things I don't understand. But they're disappearing because of the turnips.
If the turnips are the only threat facing berries and birds, they'll adapt in a few thousand years. But they ain't got thousand years. There's too many things happening. I can't make the humans disappear, which will also help, but I can try make the turnips disappear, which will also help.
That's true, but there are examples where ecosystems that have gone through state changes cause many more problems. Here in California, Spanish grasses have supplanted a number of our own natives. For ranching it's ideal - it's what cattle is used to grazing - but they have huge drawbacks in regards to water retention, fire danger, carbon storage, and viable habitat for local fauna. Unlike many of our natives, they fully dry out in the summer/fall which can act like tinder for even the smallest spark. It's one of the areas Calfire and the state at large is trying to tackle. In coastal California we have Scottish Broom, that spreads prolifically, suppresses natives, and impedes diversity within the ecosystems in grows. It needs to go. But you're right, other "invasives" end up filling a niche and adding the ecosystem they inhabit.
Other than invasives, management can be needed on native ecosystems that have had catastrophic events. When forests are clearcut the lack of varied ages means that when trees grow back they grow back prolifically and in dense distribution. Without tree thinning you end up with dense, small stands that are perfect at turbocharging wildfires (that's why we often get "super fires" in California. Or like the native purple urchins in California. Their keystone predators have largely died off either due to human hunting - like the sea otter - or climatic events - like sea star wasting disease for the sunflower starfish, and now they expand uninhibited. If we don't do something we'll continue to lose the kelp forests that act as habitat and nursery to much of our fishery.
Like others have said and as you have called out, it's such a nuanced dance. The frustrating truth is that some invasives need to go, others can stay, and pretty much everything needs some form of management these days.
!!! Can you share some of these kinds of tools? Doesn't have to be your company's, a competitor is fine
I definitely want to subscribe to any such newsletters please :)
Sure, a few prevalent ones below:
Awesome thank you. And I've just ordered a copy of Eager from my library
Thanks for the excellent reply. This whole thread has been great. I'll check out those resources.
I've worked with animals my whole life and I have a secondary dream of providing habitat for rescued beavers, then relocating them to work their magic across the region. They are the ultimate forest managers and they don't need to be trained or paid or anything but left alone in suitable habitat.
I guess if I was pressed to choose I'd want to stay near the coast. The losses around Butano State Park and Big Basin are so extensive, and we have family history in Pescadero that goes way back. Big Sur has been ravaged lately too, although a lot of that is on public land in Ventana. I won't be able to get serious about this for another couple years and it's depressing to think about how many other sites will be available by then.
Nice, we're definitely in the same area. I used to love camping at Butano before it burned - my partner and I had even considered renting out all the hike in campsites and hosting our future wedding there. If you want a really cool example of a restoration win I'd check out Fort Ord - some of the inland sections (particularly at the lookouts that overlook the bay) have had really successful restoration work completed. I've been mountain biking up there for about a decade and the transformation is mind blowing. The other spot is out by "the Indians" campsites in Los Padres National Forest. It was intensely ranched, and in many cases still is, but in the areas that have been restored with natives it has returned to a biodiversity hotspot. Both are great day outings from where you are!
Ironically one of the recent fires in Big Sur was caused by a homeowner conducting an unregulated targeted burn that got out of control. I think it's a great advertisement to work with your local agencies. Calfire has caused tons of issues with their fire suppression measures, but that is rapidly changing. I think the most depressing conversation I've had in the last year was with one of the fire prep principals at The US Forest Service in California. He explained that at this point they are planning for all of the forests to burn, he doesn't see an alternative, and just preparing to do prevention of loss of life efforts and targeted restoration post burn in feasible areas. It's a little bleak.
And hell yeah beavers!!! If you haven't check it out, or others in this thread, Eager is an awesome book about just how much beavers do for ecosystems. I grew up in the bay area and was blown away to find out some of the little creeks that ran through our town used to be home to lots of beavers. It wasn't until Covid, when I was visiting my dad at the shoreline restoration park, that we saw salmon headed upstream!!! It's crazy how much nature wants to thrive and how aggressively we're preventing it!
If it's not for personal use, it seems like joining an organization might be a better way to get started? Then you have a community and don't have to do it all on your own.
I don't know much about it, but land trusts are an established thing. Here's a website for finding land trusts near you.
Just as an aside, many western forests are supposed to burn. There’s species that don’t drop seeds until after a fire. The reason many fires are so destructive is because of the un-natural suppression of natural fires leasing to the unhealthy buildup of fuel.
Super true! Problems also arise with the type of fires we're seeing though. "Superfires" burn much hotter than traditional wildfires and end up killing trees that have evolved to be resilient to normal wildfires. They are a symptom of our current timber clear cutting practices and fire suppression measures (as you called out!). All the extra tinder pumps up the intensity, volume, and pace of the fires to a detrimental point. So, yes, we should absolutely allow for burns. But we should do it in tandem with tree thinning, reduced/banned clear cutting, and prescribed burns in months with lower burn rates/higher moisture content.
What @rosco said basically, plus a linked resource to get you started, and some advice from a woodlot owner.
Nova Scotia woodlot management home study program - it's free, it's got a ton of info, and they even mail out a certificate :) this one you can do right now before you have your land.
https://woodlotsbc.ca/woodlots/faq/ -- this is for BC but learn about licenses, consider applying for public land instead of buying your own. Google or call these guys and ask about the CA equivalent I guess: companies lease land from governments all the time to cut down forests that belong to you and me. If you could keep a patch away from them and use the left over money for restoration that's way better bang for buck.
Basically get to know your local woodlot association and ask them anything, they're very happy to talk woodlots and conservation. https://sfp.ucanr.edu/pubs/brochures/Woodlots/
Talk to these guys instead of real estate agents who only know about destroying land and sidestepping protection regulations for profit.
Advice.
If you're expecting a significant money sink, make sure your children are in on this project with you. Stewardship is about time and you don't ever want to be in a place where your kids feel neglected and can't wait for you to die so they can raze your forest for revenge, or clearcut and sell. Kids need to bond with this land, which is going to be their land one day.
Pick land that is as close to you as possible. You want to be able to visit as often as you can to form that bond. Visit in every season, forage and camp on it, bird watch, star gaze, study animal poops left on the trails, hunt on it, and generally enjoy it by falling in love with it, not just left empty barren as a guilt offering to nature. I feel you, so much of what's happening makes me want to cry, but love will last longer than guilt.
Forests have no fences. Folks living nearby will ATV on it and ride horses on it and through it etc. It don't matter who owns the land and you're not likely gonna be able to patrol your 100 acre lot 24/7/365. You can put up signs sure but honestly they're not going to do much. Try making friends with neighbors who do live there: if they ride, they can be part of your patrol. Beer cans ahoy -..- bring garbage bags when you visit.
Water water water water water. Find maps that tell you where headwaters and springs and bogs are. Study some soil and geology maps to see if it's 2 inches on top of bedrock or several meters of deep dark soil. You may not care right now with Forest Fever on your brain but the animals who want to live in/move into your land do care.
Walk the land and look for signs of delicate species, if buying wetlands or recovering forest - lichens and amphibians. Guess while you're at it find out if there's been toxic dump on site in the past....
Do not buy landlocked land. I know the prices sound awesome and right now you're imagining a half hour hike into it from the nearest public land ain't bad. It's bad. Don't do it. Because --
You'll need a chainsaw and car access. Stuff fall down a lot and nature happens to stuff a lot. A lot of the time your trails will have trees and shrubs and life happening across them and you need to regain access. Car access means you can bring a bunch of stuff to camp and fish and do human activities that let you love the land. Landlocked = unvisitable = you're not going to care for it and nearby events happening to the land will have more of an impact than you.
Survey. Our surveyor said it would cost a ton of money to mark and blaze (cut a physical, visible property boundary) all the sides, and they cut us a deal to just mark corners for us, and we visit and GPS it and basically leave the boundary imaginary. Our forest is surrounded on nearly all sides by crown forests so we definitely wanted to be sure where we can cut fallen trees vs where we can't.
I would love to know the equivalent tools in CA for checking out forest height, density, age and species of growth, water sources and wetness index, property plot boundaries,
crownpublic land(?), map of old abandoned wells, road grade, LIDAR maps, etc. for NS: https://novascotia.ca/natr/forestry/gis/webmaps.aspThat's fantastic idea, cheers! I hope to do something similar one day.
I'm no expert, but I have been involved a little in land conservation. That and I've been wandering around in rainforests in various stages of recovery and maturity my whole life.
Water is everything. The land isn't going to be able to hold onto it for years, you need a forest for that. So that will slow the whole process down unless there's a lot of rain or snowmelt, which I guess is unlikely in much of CA.
So maybe narrow your search to areas with more rainfall, or nearby altitude high enough for snow? I think you have the right idea with headwaters, or even a river. If you have a year round water source the recovery can start there and work its way out.
Have you thought about contacting a local conservancy? They're going to know exactly which natives to plant to speed up the recovery, and probably they've already been talking about which local species are going to be more climate change resilient.
In any case nature knows exactly what to do, you'll mostly just be giving it a head start and then letting it do it's thing. Which is to say there's nothing irresponsible about it.
I dont know how much different it would be in California but up here in Alberta there's no need to 'restore' the land. We had a wildfire go through VERY close to our property last year, like 30 ft from our kitchen window. The land looked desolate and horribly charred for only a few months afterwards. But now, a year later, its already growing incredibly lush plants and the new trees are sprouting up like crazy. There are already trees and brush that are 4 ft tall on land that was razed to the ground.
The ash and the fire provides incredibly rich ground to grow in and there's no doubt that it already looks amazingly restored after only a year. You can still see tall standing burned out trunks but those will fall over in the next couple of years and I bet in four or five years no one will even be able to tell a wildfire happened here. Nature is amazing.
While its happening, the wildfire was terrifying. But afterwards, its clear that our forest NEED to have wildfires to flourish. We just have to try and keep them from burning residences but the forests themselves will be just fine after a fire.
That's incredibly comforting to hear, both about forest fires and the land. I'm glad your home is okay nevertheless.
Isn't there a lot of lower priced land in the delta? There are conservation efforts there.
I have also been seeing some decent sized acreage for sale just west/northwest of Morgan Hill. No housing on it, or like a single shack, but not really habitable in it's current form. Might be somewhere to keep an eye on.