UC Boulder Study - Only 11% Of National Fire Plan Goals For Exurban, Rural Homes Under Way

[hatrack]

Only 11 percent of wildfire mitigation efforts undertaken as a result of a long-term federal fuels-reduction program to cut down catastrophic wildfire risk to communities have been undertaken near people's homes or offices in the past five years, says a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The analysis of the U.S. National Fire Plan shows that as more Americans live in or near fire-prone forests and more wildfires burn, most federally funded activities to reduce fuels and wildfire hazard have occurred far from the "wildland-urban interface," the area prioritized by federal wildfire policies. The result suggests that federal wildfire treatments are minimally effective at mitigating the threat of wildfire to homes and people in the western United States.

The study also suggests that future fire mitigation strategies should emphasize constructing and maintaining "firewise" homes, restricting the abundance and configuration of residential housing units near wildlands susceptible to fire, and improving cooperation among private and public landowners in implementing fire mitigation treatments and in paying for fire suppression.

"Our comprehensive analysis suggests that fire mitigation treatments do not effectively target the wildland-urban interface," said Tania Schoennagel, a research scientist in CU-Boulder's geography department. Schoennagel led a team of researchers who examined 44,000 federally funded wildfire mitigation projects in 11 western states between 2004 and 2008.

EDIT

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Fire_Mitigation_Work_In_Western_US_Misplaced_999.html

[Fotoware58]

1. Slanted study

Be sure to read the full article, folks.

"The team found that only 11 percent of fuel-reduction activities took place within about 1.5 miles of the wildland-urban interface, where fires pose the greatest risk to homes and people. At the same time, most of the treated land was more than 6 miles from this high-risk zone."

How many huge home-burning fires start 6 miles away? The Biscuit and the Yellow fires ( 900,000 acres total ) burned into the WUI from WAY more than 6 miles away. Wind-driven firestorms can spread at amazing rates, sending spot fires miles ahead of the fire front. Also important is the fact that public lands close to the WUI are MUCH less healthy than the private lands regarding fire safety. Example: Tahoe's Angora Fire

"There are reasons that more land near the wildland-urban interface might not have been treated, said Schoennagel. The study found that 70 percent of the wildland-urban interface plus a 1.5-mile community-protection zone surrounding it is privately owned, which limits the federal government's ability to treat the high-risk zone."

Ahhh, now we're getting closer to the truth! I'd also place a huge amount of blame to NIMBYism because much of the people who decide to live in the woods want no part of "fuels reductions", especially via logging and prescribed fires. We saw the exact same examples in Australia before the fires killed more than 200 people.

"Federal agencies treated more than 29 million fire-prone acres between 2001 and 2008."

I'll bet this includes Federal Let-Burn fires that not only reduce dead fuels and underbrush but also huge amounts of green trees. These Let-Burn fires end up with a much higher amount of dead fuels after all those green trees die.

"The other reason is a recent increase in wildfires. Schoennagel and her colleagues cite other research that has shown that the area of forest burned between 1987 and 2003 was six times greater than that which burned in the previous 16 years."

Ahhhh, I see no mention at all of the fact that, in some areas, there are 1000 more trees per acre there than during pre-Eurpoean times. If you control the fuels, including live trees, then you can much more easily control the fires. Generally, the kinds of fuels reductions that are palatable to eco-groups and their lawyers are the kinds that are totally inadequate to protect the public.

"Between 2002 and 2006, wildfires claimed 10,000 U.S. homes. In four of the last five years, wildfires have consumed more than 8 million acres annually, and the total area burned in each of those four years was greater than that of any year between 1960 and 2004, according to the National Interagency Fire Center."

Hmmmm, "interesting" that during Clinton's and Bush's terms, timber harvesting dropped rather dramatically, as well. Fuel loading also shot upward at a phenomenal rate. Mortality in the forests also shot up at a disturbing rate, as well.

"Schoennagel and her colleagues also cited research indicating that much of the wildland-urban interface in the West is in forests and shrublands subject to hard-to-control, high-severity fires, where fuels are abundant but fires are driven by severe weather events."

Well, since we cannot control weather, ohhhhh geeeee, what are we supposed to do?!?!?! We've had severe weather during all those years where the yearly burned acreage was at about 3 million acres per year. Part of the reason for lower acreages is that clearcutting and other types of logging made "mosaics" that resisted big fires. Also important in reducing wildfires is the fact that logger's equipment was already out there in the woods, eager to respond to wildfires. Now, don't get me wrong in thinking that I recommend going back to those days of piss-poor forest stewardship but, trading overcutting for Let-Burn is not a good way to go, either.

"The authors acknowledged that fuels treatments located far from the wildland-urban interface may play an important role in protecting timber resources and rare or threatened species or ecosystems from high-severity fire. But their effectiveness in direct protection of human communities is questionable given that the potential for a home to burn is relatively independent of distant wildland fire behavior."

However, as fires sizes and severities increase because of fuel build-ups, homes and businesses become more and more at risk. Add to that, all of the severe impacts of catastrophic wildfires do indeed affect humans in the WUI, despite their ignition sources being miles and miles away. The smoke from the fires in northern California last year ranged all the way to Yellowstone. People were forced to stay indoors because of intense smoke. Tourism in rural areas was extremely hard hit. Even wine production was affected by "smoke taint".

"Treatments implemented far from the wildland-urban interface should be conducted primarily where substantial benefits to watershed protection, biodiversity, or restoration of degraded ecosystems can be demonstrated," said Nelson, an assistant professor of restoration ecology at the University of Montana."

Again, Wildfires are ALWAYS bad for our environment! So, when will we start doing something about them, in order to save those watersheds, biodiversity and ecosystems at risk?!?!?