Updates on the fatalities of the Granite Mountain 19
We have more information about the deaths of the 19 firefighters (including new information about the last moments of the Granite Mountain Hotshots), the weather that appeared to be a factor in the tragedy, as well as updates about the Yarnell Hill Fire where the accident occurred.
The White House has announced that Vice President Biden will attend the memorial service for the firefighters.
Wildfires in eastern Russia
From InSerbia:
The Far Eastern Federal District forestry department reported on Friday that almost 20 wildfires broke out in the Russian Far East on Thursday, majority of them in Yakutia.
“There were 16 wildfires in Yakutia, two in the Khabarovsk territory and one in Kamchatka,” the report said.
Four wildefires in Yakutia have been put out. However, 15 forest fires are still raging in the Russian Far East.
The fires spread over approximately 170 ha of forest in Kamchatka. In Yakutia, about 90 ha of forest were burned, in the Khabarovsk about 3 ha.
More than 730 firemen, 42 fire trucks, 7 planes and 6 helicopters are assigned to firefighting mission.
Some residents upset with insurance company
Some homeowners are upset that an insurance company is asking them to take some personal responsibility to reduce the wildfire risk on their property.
Below is an excerpt from an article in the Colorado Springs Gazette by Bill Vogrin:
…I reported that on June 10, State Farm mailed 12,000 letters to homeowners in red zones in six Western states alerting them that inspectors would be visiting their properties and taking photos to assess their risk from wildfire.
In the column, State Farm spokeswoman Angela Thorpe said the largest property and casualty insurer in the country was dusting off its dormant “wildfire loss prevention program” after the industry experienced massive claims following devastating wildfires across the West in 2012.
I am skeptical… Holding insurance companies’ adjusters to standards is an oxymoron, and different in every state. Where there a gray area in interpretation, and subjective analysis by an adjuster (who is likely an expert in structure fire, but not wildfire behavior), they seek reasons for denial of claim first, and the consumer always loses. (“We believe removal of that tree may have made a difference.” “That wildgrass appears to have been more than 3.5 inches in length before it burned.” “The wind velocity when your shed and barn burned is not deemed to be relevant.”)
I think this is perfectly reasonable, as long as adjusters hold to a certain standard and know what they’re actually looking at. Why would a homeowner not want to make their place more fire-safe anyway?? Well I can think of some reasons, but they end up being pretty superficial when compared to losing everything in your house. Homes in flood plains cost more to insure, and now with the state of forests and such highly destructive fires, homes in high-fire-risk areas should cost more to insure as well. Makes sense that taking the care to lower the risk to your home should subsequently lower the cost to insure. Or at least keep the cost from increasing to the higher-risk tier.
When I bought my house years ago and called the insurance agent, they immediately wanted to know if I had smoke detectors, deadbolts, fire extinguishers (they were impressed when i told them there was fire apparatus parked in the driveway), etc. Having all that got me a “home security discount”. Seems only reasonable to extend the same concept to WUI principles as listed above, and either offering a discount for being FireWise, or higher premiums for not being. It’s a simple matter of charging more for higher risk, lower for less risk. I’m surprised the insurance industry hasn’t done this years ago.
Would the recommendations that Firewise.org suggests be sufficient for an insurace company?
I suspect that the recommendations on Firewise, or another source similar, will be their guideline. They may already have a policy. As pointed out by Don, Firewise doesn’t require a moonscape. Off the top of my head, removing dead litter against the building, cleaning gutters, eliminating niches for embers, eliminate bark mulch, moving woodpiles, removing overhanging limbs, replacing susceptible shrubs with more fire resistant types, making sure grasses surrounding the home are mowed and KEPT watered are key.
As a more long term plan, replace siding and roofing made of kindling (cedar, redwood, even pine or fir T-111) with fire resistant materials, (metal roofing, fiber-cement siding), closing soffits, fine steel mesh on eave vents, metal gutters. I know there are many more
I feel like a nitwit ;-). I forgot to mention access. Since I work on a Strike Team of Engines when we go to these kind of fires, it was evidently too obvious. When we go, we send 5 Type 6 engines with water tanks ranging from 200 to 400 gallons (Small brush trucks) and a water tender. 50,000 lbs, 32 feet long. While the Type 6’s are pretty maneuverable, the Tender, not so much. So, in order for us to make access, it is very important to have a safe way in and out. I need a road with a 12′ wide surface, compacted gravel or pavement, with additional clearing on both sides, cleared 14′ above the ground. If the roadway is more than 500′ long, I also want a turnout, to allow trucks to pass each other. When it gets longer, you need to add additional turnouts. Turnouts should have an additional 8′ of surface width, and the 8′ wide section should be at least 60′ long. If you have a hairpin curve, the roadway surface needs to be 14′ wide for the length of the curve. The front and rear axles track in different arcs on a very tight turn. At the end, you need to have a place for us to turn our vehicles. A round cul de sac is nice, but a hammerhead is a more efficient way to use ground. It needs to be large enough to allow for a 3 point turn. If you have a private bridge in your driveway, it needs to be marked with a weight capacity. Using a standard capacity sign, (an R12-5 from the MUTCD) will help us believe you really do know the capacity of your bridge. And, please, don’t just make something up. Isn’t cheap to have your bridge inspected and rated by an structural engineer, but if you want me to risk my $250,000 Water tender at your home, it’s probably the right thing to do.
Very good points about access. I know driveways in our service area that I would be afraid to tackle in a Type 6 engine. In the tender, no way.
On the homeowner issue. Check out the aerial photos of the Black Forest Fire for how many burned houses still have green trees around them suggesting that the structure caught fire before the vegetation around it did. This tells me that those structures that suffered such a fate may have had failures on the part of the homeowner to take sufficient steps to make that structure more fire resistant.
The burned structure/green vegetation pictures are all too common in the wildland/urban interface, but until insurance companies (I agree, they are the ones with the real leverage here) start putting pressure on homeowners to take reasonable steps, I’m afraid this will continue to be a common scene.
Reading the article on insurance companies requiring defensible space around houses makes me realize there is a lot of ignorance out there about what defensible space really is. The upset homeowners sound like they think it means moonscape landscaping out to 100 feet. Local fire departments have lots of opportunity for education. And unfortunately, there are probably some insurance inspectors who also don’t have a complete understanding and will give bad advice. But any effort is better than none.
What? Make people responsible for their own situation? That’s just unthinkable!
Bah. I’m responsible to keep my roof free of moss, and keep things like the railings on my deck in good repair. I don’t see the difference. I suspect they will require homeowners to institute defensible space practices. Insurance companies are really the only agency with a lever. While they are only doing it because it helps their bottom line, it’s about time. If people don’t like it, guess they will have to change to an insurance company that doesn’t require the practice, or pay more.