The Forest Service spends billions of dollars fighting fires and implementing fuel treatments like logging and prescribed burns to reduce large wildfires.
A further problem with the emphasis on logging the forest is that a significant acreage charred each year is in non-forested landscapes like sagebrush, grasslands, and chaparral where “fuel reductions” by logging have no influence.
At the same time, little funding is available for home hardening, the most effective strategy for protecting communities from wildfires.
It’s critical to note that the effectiveness of thinning/logging and prescribed burning has been questioned. In general, such tactics fail under extreme fire weather conditions.
This is important because nearly all the acreage charred occurs only in the very few wildfires burning under extreme fire weather conditions.
So, the “solution” pushed by federal and state agencies, forestry schools, and the timber industry fails with the very fires that “fuel reductions” are intended to stop.
Climate and weather drive all large blazes, not fuels. Climate warming creates ideal conditions for large wildfires.
For instance, the Mountain Fire charring southern California is driven by 60-80 mph winds.
I have visited dozens of large fires across the West, and wind significantly affected their spread.
Under such conditions, wind can carry embers several miles through the air. Wind also provides more oxygen and fans the flames.
The influence of wind means that “fuel treatments” like prescribed burns and thinning are ineffective in slowing or stopping a blaze. Wind drives embers over, around, and through “fuel reductions.”
It only takes one ember to destroy a home.
Logging and prescribed burns do not change the climate. And as long as the climate is warming, we can expect more large blazes.
These are inconvenient truths for the Forest Service and other agencies that want to promote logging and prescribe fire as the panacea for wildfires.
Wildfires, even the most intense blazes, will not ignite a home more than 100 feet away.
Thinning the forest miles from a house is just a waste of money, degrades forest ecosystems, and often enhances fire spread by opening up the forest to wind.
Nevertheless, there are ways to minimize the cost to society through home hardening. Hardening increases buildings’ resistance to wildfire.
Harden your home to be fire-resistant.
Numerous proven techniques give any home the best chance of surviving a large wildfire. According to a guide created by the US Forest Service and the United States Department of Agriculture one should implement these changes or measures.
The central theme is to reduce flammable materials near or in the home. However, the most critical variable is “defensible space.” Removing all flammable vegetation within five feet of a house foundation is vital. One starts at the home and works outward to 100 feet.
In addition, installing non-flammable metal or shingle roofs, screening vents to prevent embers from entering the attic, and installing windows with metal frames (as opposed to vinyl, which can melt) are all retrofits that reduce the home’s flammability.
Pay attention to your roof. Installing a metal roof can increase your home’s chances of surviving a blaze by 95% or more. Asphalt fiberglass shingles also work.
Next, remove flammable materials from gutters and the roof, like pine needles, leaves, and other burnable materials—screen vents either in the foundation or roof area.
Use tempered glass in windows and doors.
Replace wooden decks with metal or concrete.
Installing sprinklers on the roof is a relatively cost-effective measure. A wet roof won’t ignite. I have several sprinklers, which I put on the roof’s crest in summer. A hose hangs down to my facet. Should a fire approach my home, the last thing I will do as I evacuate is turn on the sprinklers.
According to a report by Headwaters Economics, incorporating such measures in home construction can increase overall costs by 2% to 13%. Still, they significantly reduce the chances the house will burn in a major wildfire.
California has a state program to help homeowners with home hardening costs. The federal government should implement a similar fund for all homeowners in vulnerable landscapes.
Home hardening is far more cost-effective than logging the forest to implement a massive “fuel reduction” program. Prescribed burns may be limited in reducing fuels immediately next to communities, but it isn’t a panacea when the wind is blowing 80 mph. Embers blow right over any “fuel reduction.”
It is good to see individuals practicing home hardening, but it should be the country’s central fire policy. Unfortunately, the Forest Service forestry schools ignore the influence of climate/weather in their impact on large wildfires.
Leave a Reply