The Union Pacific Railroad has agreed to pay the Forest Service $102 million — the largest wildfire settlement in history — for causing a fire in California’s Feather River Canyon. Though railroad employees were almost certainly responsible for the fire, the UP could have used some better lawyers or, better yet, some economists among their expert witnesses.
Normally, if you start a fire that gets out of control, you are responsible for paying suppression costs — in this case, $22 million. But this time, the judge also ordered the railroad to pay the estimated damage to “public scenery and recreation and habitat and wildlife,” which added $80 million to the total. On top of that, the UP may have to cover the Forest Service’s costs of reforesting the burned acres.
At first glance, this sounds just. Except it isn’t clear to me that the fire actually did any damage to scenery, recreation, habitat, or wildlife. On top of that, if the Forest Service is so concerned about such damage, why didn’t it do something to fix the problems as soon as the fire was put out? In fact, it did nearly nothing for years.
The story begins in August, 2000, when UP track crews were cutting rail on the former Western Pacific line. Sparks from the rail cutter started a small fire, which the track crew claims they suppressed (although their contradictory stories about what they actually did appears to have angered the judge). After they left work, the fire got going again and ended up burning 52,000 acres of national forest land and 3,000 acres of private land.
Eighty million dollars for 52,000 acres is more than $1,500 per acre, which the Forest Service gets to keep to “be quickly applied toward restoring the landscape and the ecological balance.” If Forest Service spending is typical, reforestation will easily cost another $500 per acre, or more than $25 million more.
But do fires really destroy scenery, recreation, habitat, and wildlife? Forest Service economists have found that recreationists place a much lower value on recreation in forests that have been cut, but not in forests that have been burned. Scenic values might be a little lower to casual drivers in the Feather River Canyon, but most of the fire would be out of their views.
Many species of wildlife thrive after a fire, and some are in many ways dependent on fires. While a few individual animals might have been killed by the fire, most are able to escape. So where is the $80 million in lost value?
Don’t eat Acid food such as pork, beef, chicken, duck, generika cialis tadalafil egg, carp, Oyster, shrimp, flour, rice, peanut, barley or beer. It was so popular and so profitable with such good results one had to take to solve generic levitra from canada my difficulty. If you need to refresh your knowledge of driving skills you can also opt for pause can squeeze method to delay slovak-republic.org viagra levitra cialis ejaculation. How to make sense of the various offers? A cialis on line is something that many websites and other sources carry jokes related to cialis.
The Forest Service’s own behavior after the fire doesn’t suggest that much value was lost. As a former Forest Service employee notes, the owners of the 3,000 acres of private land that was burned immediately salvaged the dead trees and planted “nearly 1 million trees.” Five years after the fire, the Forest Service had planted a grand total of 411 acres.
Like the private landowners, the Forest Service wanted to salvage the dead trees, but were stymied by environmental appeals. If your goal is to make money, then salvage makes sense. Since the Forest Service gets to keep all the revenues from salvage sales, it has a powerful incentive to salvage after fires. In other words, the Forest Service makes a lot of money from salvage sales, but taxpayers don’t.
If your goal is forest restoration, salvage is more questionable. Cutting and moving trees disturbs soils already made fragile by the fire. It also removes nutrients and shade that are crucial to reforestation. In the late summers, the temperatures of exposed soils in the Sierra Nevada forests can rise above 130 degrees, which is lethal to seedlings. Shade can protect the seedlings from being literally burned up in the sun.
Thanks to environmentalists, the Forest Service didn’t get to salvage the trees, so what does it do to rehabilitate the area? Apparently very little other than sue the railroad. Here we are nearly 8 years after the fire and the agency is talking about using the settlement to “quickly” rehabilitate the area. There is nothing “quick” about sitting on your hands for 8 years.
On top of this, there is the whole question of who is really responsible for the size of the fire. The standard story the Forest Service gives to Congress is that the large fires of recent years are the result of a century of fire suppression, which led to increased fuels in the forests making them more vulnerable to catastrophic fire. The Antiplanner disputes this story in general, but the Sierra Nevada is one of the places where it might be valid. If so, then the Forest Service shares complicity in the damage.
It is also worth noting that modern firefighting tactics (aimed at protecting firefighters’ lives) allow more acres to burn than would have been done for similar fires in the past. To the extent that forests really are more vulnerable to fire due to past mismanagement, there is good reason to believe that letting more acres burn will help restore natural fire ecosystems. If so, maybe the UP did the Forest Service a favor.
The U.S. Attorney in eastern California promises to bring many more cases like this in the future. It sounds like a scam to me. Let’s see: 1. Neglect your forests so they become more vulnerable to fire. 2. Wait until a small fire takes off and let it burn thousands of acres. 3. Do nothing to rehabilitate the forest until years of litigation have taken place. 4. Profit!
Like the private landowners, the Forest Service wanted to salvage the dead trees, but were stymied by environmental appeals.
Right.
That’s because – as Randal knows – postfire salvage logging is more harmful than regular logging, even clear-cutting. So in this case* it was found ecological benefits and scenery are more important than money.
DS
*This was also true in the American River canyon.
One reason the California earthquake caused only minor damage was new, tough building codes enacted since the deadly Northridge quake in 1994, according to an expert with the U.S. Geological Survey. – CNN.com
Yet another example of elitist planners telling us they know better than we do how to build our homes and offices. Will the attacks on freedom ever end?
“To the extent that forests really are more vulnerable to fire due to past mismanagement, there is good reason to believe that letting more acres burn will help restore natural fire ecosystems.”
The “let it burn” technique had been employed with success untill the selling of of forest land to people who wanted to build giant log cabins in the woods reached a critical mass. Now fire fighters have to fight the fires because some person built a house where they should’t have and may loose their “2nd” home. When I lived in Crested Butte I went to several F.S. public meetings which discussed various topics, mainly on use issues in our National Forest. I must admitt A.P. in this post you sound like the planners on the western slope plaeding with the F.S. to manage post fire statigies better.
I must admitt A.P. in this post you sound like the planners
Thems fightin’ wurds…
bennett:
The issue is that the FS is fighting fire to prevent second homes from burning (or some first homes). If we are pushing down all kinds of responsibilities from the feds to localities in all other aspects – roads, infra, housing funding, human services, etc etc etc – then why not firefighting? Make the RFPDs fight the fires and by gum, you’ll instantly have either fewer homes in the WUI or lots of funding for RFPDs and less responsibility for the FS to fight fire. And likely less fire danger as homeowners will need to keep a perimeter because enforcement will be down the road instead of in D.C..
Will this change the human need for nearby nature and greenery outside the window? No. So the cause of the problem won’t go away. But the responsibility will shift away from the beleaguered FS.
DS
More costs created by inefficient rail!
But won’t those extra $80 million given to the FS create jobs? 🙂
” One reason the California earthquake caused only minor damage was new, tough building codes enacted since the deadly Northridge quake in 1994, according to an expert with the U.S. Geological Survey. – CNN.com
Yet another example of elitist planners telling us they know better than we do how to build our homes and offices. Will the attacks on freedom ever end?
”
So without those building codes it would’ve been a complete disaster? Wouldn’t people loaning out money for these buildings want to make sure the buildings were up to snuff? Or the insurance companies insuring them? Or the owners of these buildings?
And aren’t these sort of building codes, ones aimed at how the buildings are internally constructed, actually much different from actual planning? I picture planning as being from things like how tall the building will be, what it’ll be used for, how it’ll look on the outside, and where it’d be located. I picture that sort of building code as not being aimed at all those things, but in general aimed at ensure whatever is built, whatever it’s purpose, and whatever it looks like will be able to withstand an earthquake.
†One reason the California earthquake caused only minor damage was new, tough building codes enacted since the deadly Northridge quake in 1994, according to an expert with the U.S. Geological Survey. – CNN.com
Yet another example of elitist planners telling us they know better than we do how to build our homes and offices. Will the attacks on freedom ever end?
If this comment was by Dan or one of my allies on this blog, I’d take it as parody. Of course, Prk266 is soooo serious…as I’m sure his use of the “pejorative words” fallacy is, e.g., “…elitist planners…”
So without those building codes it would’ve been a complete disaster? Wouldn’t people loaning out money for these buildings want to make sure the buildings were up to snuff? Or the insurance companies insuring them? Or the owners of these buildings?
The point of the article was that new building codes adopted since the earthquake in 1994 appear to have reduced damage relative to what happened under older building codes. So, for whatever reason, insurance wasn’t enough in the past to reduce damage in the way that the new building codes apparently have.
And aren’t these sort of building codes, ones aimed at how the buildings are internally constructed, actually much different from actual planning?
Not in an ideological sense. The building codes are regulations that limit freedom, and are based on an “elitist” notion that government building officials know more about how to build your house in a safe fashion than you do. Antiplanners usually complain about such things.
prk166,
You’ve seen nothing yet. In some earthquake prone countries of Europe (e.g. Italy, Greece) planners often allow only the building of stone and mortar structures (18th century technology) in order to preserve the architectural character of neighborhoods (and also preserve the old tradition of dying burried under hundreds of tons of ruble in an earthquake, since it is virtually impossible to build a stone and mortar building that can take more than say 0.3 g of peak ground acceleration). So, in this case, planners actually force you to build buildings that cannot withstand even a moderate earthquake while other building methods (eg, wood, steel) can normally withstand 3+ times the peak ground accelerations that stone and mortar can.
But, back to the post’s topic…
Estimation of the damage aside, to me, the other important issue is why UP was held responsible for the entire cost of the perceived damage. Say, a particular forest naturally burns down every, say, 80 years on average. Then 60 years after it last burned you accidentally start a wildfire. Are you responsible for the entire cost?
Suppose the parking break gets loose on your car and it bumps the 150 year old abandoned, ready to collapse building at the end of the road and the building collapses. In the spirit of the FS vs. UP litigation outcome you would be responsible for the entire cost of rebuilding plus loss of historical character for the neighborhood.
Ah. That settlement was for the Storrie fire.
The FRI in much of that area is 35 – 100 years (height and aspect vary widely over such a large area), and stand-replacing fires there are rare.
The Storrie fire was a stand-replacing fire and in addition seared and crusted the topsoil layer, causing additional issues with natural regeneration (requiring manual regeneration in many areas – it was a 50k+ acre fire – lots of money required for such a large area).
UP’s net income in 2007 was ~11 times the amount of the settlement, BTW.
DS
The destructive (stand-replacing) characteristics of the fire were probably a result of the condition of the forest, not the method of ignition (i.e. man made accidental ignition vs. natural). The spark created by the railroad workers was the straw that broke that camel’s back (started the destructive fire) but was not the main cause. Since the conditions for a destructive fire were present, absent the sparks from the rail cutter, some natural cause would have probably started a similar fire sometime in the near future.
Again, it’s like having a 150 year old building that is ready to collapse. 6 months before it would absolutely collapse on its own, a helicopter goes by and the vibration causes the building to collapse. We blame the helicopter.
Well this some what of a quagmire, though the legal response to this case is some what understandable given the policy environment that there is today thanks to lobbyists such as Mr.O’Toole(or Mr.Cox).
For that matter WP would be better off being part of BNSF instead of UP.
I think we have to be willing to accept a certain amount of risk in some activities. As long as UP did not purposely or negligently start the fire, the should not be 100% responsible for the costs. Sorry, but sometimes shit just happens. LibertyAlert.blogspot.com.
D4P should apologise to the structural engineers that he slandered by referring to them as planners. The “whatever reason” that D4P so glibly referred to was new knowledge gleaned from the Northridge structural failures using new failure analysis techniques. That’s what building codes are about, analyticly identifying the minimum standards needed to preserve structural integrity in high probability adverse events or conditions.
Planning is all about preserving “community values”. Nothing life saving or admirable about that.
The “whatever reason†that D4P so glibly referred to was new knowledge gleaned from the Northridge structural failures using new failure analysis techniques. That’s what building codes are about, analyticly identifying the minimum standards needed to preserve structural integrity in high probability adverse events or conditions.
So: safety is derived from government regulations, not private insurance…?
“D4P should apologise to the structural engineers that he slandered by referring to them as planners.”
I happen to know a few people who proudly stand under the planner flag who are actually architects, engineers, business men etc. Building codes are planned by a group of people that include planners. Zoning codes are drafted with the help of traffic engineers, civil engineers and lawyers. People plan their cities. Sorry to break it to all you free marketers, but y’all are in the minority, people want planning. This blog obviously isn’t getting the word out, it’s just riles up us planners and gives the libertarians a place to group think. Considering ENRON, B.sterns, EXXON, etc. I think the A.P’s out there have their work cut out for them convincing people to abandon regulation and let businessmen decide the world’s fate. Good luck!
The Antiplanner is a little out of his league on forest fire issues, and particularly forest fire ecology. He has some helpful criticism of forest planning, but he misses some of the benefits of forest planning. But forest fire politics and ecology is not so easily analyzed by armchair planners or armchair anti-planners.
Can you imagine a planner/antiplanner standing up to a jury in a fire tort lawsuit and making the arguments in this post? Especially “Maybe the UP did the Forest Service a favor.” Most people look at a burned out forest and don’t have any trouble seeing real damage. Sometime “experts” lose touch with reality when they take their philosophical ideas to an extreme in the real world.
borealis7,
Having visited more national forests on the ground than 99 percent of Forest Service employees, having studied the literature of fire ecology, having a degree in forestry, and having written numerous papers on wildfire issues, I don’t feel out of my league when it comes to fire.
Anyone who says they can detect real damage simply by “looking at a burned out forest” is fooling themselves. Fires are a part of most forest ecosystems, and while they may damage the economic value of timber, it is not clear that they always damage the forests themselves.
As long as UP did not purposely or negligently start the fire, the should not be 100% responsible for the costs. Sorry, but sometimes shit just happens.
Too bad for your argument that UP admitted negligence.
And Randal, you claim to have studied Fire Ecology, yet support postfire salvage logging. You need to go back to school and catch up to modern times.
DS
UP admitted negligence? Usually settlements result in a lack of admitting to those sort of things. At first look, this one doesn’t appear any different.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-fire23-2008jul23,0,7163129.story
A Union Pacific spokeswoman Tuesday said the settlement was reached to put the so-called Storrie fire behind them and it was agreed upon without any admission of liability on the part of its crew. She said the crew had extinguished the flames when the fire started, but a passing train reignited it.
“We feel our employees did all the right things,” Zoe Richmond said. “These were extraordinary circumstances. . . . This happened in 2000. It was a long time ago and it’s time for us to move on.”
“If this comment was by Dan or one of my allies on this blog, I’d take it as parody. Of course, Prk266 is soooo serious…as I’m sure his use of the “pejorative words†fallacy is, e.g., “…elitist planners…†”
I don’t understand what your point is, msetty.
I don’t understand what your point is, msetty.
If you don’t understand the following point, then you’ll never get it.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), part of the eeevviiilll!(tm) U.S. gummit, probably has the strictest rules in the world regarding safety requirements for commercial marine and inland waterways vessels, and is particularly strict about their requirements for passenger vessel safety. In the past few years, there have been a handful of fatal incidents on U.S. inland waters where people have died because charter boat operators had cut corners on meeting USCG regulations, something that happened in every case.
As someone who worked in the ferry business between 1987 and 2005, I can assure you that there always some grumbles–usually about the requirement to replace life-jackets frequently–but almost no one complains about the essential need for USCG regulation (of course I’m sure foreign flagged mariners do complain…) The price, of course, is that costs are increased and “freedom (sic) is reduced.”
However, the U.S. have almost no fatal vessel accidents compared with places like the Philippines, Indonesia, or Bangladesh which routinely have incidents where dozens or hundreds of people die every year in marine passenger accidents. Cruise ship accidents also seem to occur almost exclusively among foreign flagged ships, too.
prk, the AP wire story that went out was picked up by everyone, including the Capitol newspaper; note how the stories read the same.
Anyway, the key passage that you purposely or inadvertently omitted:
Right in the same story, sadly you provided a link that likely expired so we can’t see if the story carried that passage. But here’s the one the Bee link:
Here’s the CalFire blurb, from the wire story as well, which states:
The railroad said it had incurred a $10 million liability at the time of the fire and insurance would provide for the balance of the settlement, “They did admit negligence and did admit liability,” Scott said.
—–
Also, there’s this gem from the Chico paper:
I wonder if this is in direct contrast to the Randal argumentation…I wonder…I wonnnnnder…
DS
Evil spam queue.
DS