19 Hotshots Killed in Yarnell Hill Fire

[crescent]

The fire risk maps for California I posted are not updated even yearly as far as I can tell. They don't seem to have changed since 2007. I'm sure they have other maps that are updated constantly. Think of it as the difference between climate and weather.

Because they're using outdated information? They may look at years worth of data, and try to get an average, but that information can change from week to week. The data cited here, is not the best data available.

If they are basing it on vegetation type/fire regime, then it makes sense that there would be enough to base insurance rates on. A house is a long term investment, and a house in or near chaparral with a 25 year burn cycle will be at more risk than a house in or near a Spruce/Fir forest that is on a 500 year fire cycle. Granted, there may be an occasional year where the Spruce/fir area is at greater risk than the chaparral, but that would be very rare.

I suppose the hard part comes when you get the occasional fire that burns clear through fully developed areas - like the one that burned 3000 homes in Oakland, or last year's disaster in Colorado Springs (not to be confused with this year's disaster, which seems to have burned mostly through semi-developed semi-rural 1-5 acre ranchettes). I have not seen the numbers to compare how those rare but big disasters compare to the "routine" destruction of a few houses here or there in the Wildland Urban Interface areas surrounded by or on the edge of wildlands.

 

[Fizil]

Ah, not so really. Out here almost all home owner insurance policies contain language that exempt them from fire damage caused by a wildfire which they term as "an act of God."

I develop property and casualty insurance policy management and rating systems, and fire coverage is the primary cause of loss covered under property insurance. I have never seen any clause in the Common Policy Conditions, Property Conditions, Building and Personal Property Coverage Form, or Basic Causes of Loss Form that limits claims against Fire damage. It is the most basic part of property insurance. In fact, for commercial insurance, the reporting manual I just pulled up classifies all Commercial Property reporting under a section entitled not Commercial Property, but Commercial Fire and Allied Lines. I have never worked on a system where Fire coverage wasn't the primary driving force of the policy in terms of rating either. With the exception of places like Florida where Windstorm coverage dominates, most of your premium for home insurance, or your business's commercial property insurance, is from Fire coverage.

eta: Of course different insurance companies can have different forms, and certain states will be covered by different exclusion forms. For instance, Windstorm Hail Coverage is provided under the Basic Causes of Loss form, but most insurance companies I've worked with add a mandatory Windstorm Hail Exclusion Endorsement on policies in certain states where Wind or Hail damage is very likely. I am just pointing out that I have never seen an exclusion form limiting fire damage. I will note that my only experience with Homeowners insurance is in the eastern US, but I have built many different Commercial Property systems for different insurance carriers who covered all 50 states, so perhaps such an exclusion is more common on Homeowners insurance in the west and I just don't know about it.

 

[Travis]

I develop property and casualty insurance policy management and rating systems, and fire coverage is the primary cause of loss covered under property insurance. I have never seen any clause in the Common Policy Conditions, Property Conditions, Building and Personal Property Coverage Form, or Basic Causes of Loss Form that limits claims against Fire damage. It is the most basic part of property insurance. In fact, for commercial insurance, the reporting manual I just pulled up classifies all Commercial Property reporting under a section entitled not Commercial Property, but Commercial Fire and Allied Lines. I have never worked on a system where Fire coverage wasn't the primary driving force of the policy in terms of rating either. With the exception of places like Florida where Windstorm coverage dominates, most of your premium for home insurance, or your business's commercial property insurance, is from Fire coverage.

eta: Of course different insurance companies can have different forms, and certain states will be covered by different exclusion forms. For instance, Windstorm Hail Coverage is provided under the Basic Causes of Loss form, but most insurance companies I've worked with add a mandatory Windstorm Hail Exclusion Endorsement on policies in certain states where Wind or Hail damage is very likely. I am just pointing out that I have never seen an exclusion form limiting fire damage. I will note that my only experience with Homeowners insurance is in the eastern US, but I have built many different Commercial Property systems for different insurance carriers who covered all 50 states, so perhaps such an exclusion is more common on Homeowners insurance in the west and I just don't know about it.

My current homeowners policy covers the following kind of fires: electrical, arson or accident. It does not cover fire damage as a result of a forest fire or other natural source of fire (such as lightning). I had to get a separate policy for that. Interestingly both policies are through the same company.

Strangely my mortgage holder only requires the standard policy that does not cover wildfire. I've never understood that.

 

[abaddon]

I'm not belittling the firefighters who died.

Yes. Yes you are. And further, you are taking a massive **** on the bereaved.

What I object to is the media hoopla, which is a case of milking personal tragedy for profit.

Fine, then have a go at the media, not the dead and bereaved.

My apologies- obviously I wasn't being clear.

10/10 for observation.

When I referred to my grandfather's day and age, I was referring to the manner in which average people dealt with such things, before the big media empires got involved and used such events for fodder.

Yep, you recall the old times when us men were expected to all without exception be emotionless hairy hunters, while the womenfolk were expected to be wimps who fainted at the sight of an unclad ankle.

You must realise that the media portrayal and perception and repetition is an artificial thing with a life all its own? This is the type of thing I refer to as a "milker". Once the media get hold of something that touches a nerve, they will, perversely in my opinion, keep at it until they've milked it dry.

Nobody forces you to watch anything. As long as people want to watch rot on the TV or read rot in the papers etc. the media will churn it out. You have a choice not to watch it. Just a while back, I tossed my TV because I did not want to engage in the LCD anymore.

In the process, every talking head wants you to know who they are and whose media outfit you're watching/reading/listening to, as though they've stuck the suffixes patented, trademarked, copyrighted and patent pending after each mention of the tragedy in question.

Cult of celebrity, and you are supporting it while denouncing it. Basically, you are saying how awful the things in the media are, while simultaneously supporting it by watching/reading/listening to it.

Social media does get a lot of information out there but it also has a dimension of perversity.

Problem is that social media propagates far more myth and rumour than facts.

 

[Shiner]

On the fire map thing. There are vast areas of the U.S whose fire danger ratings are currently going from extremely probable to extremely unlikely.

Here's a Google link that shows wildfires across the U.S. Historical info and weather info concerning fire are some of the options. It's quite good.

http://google.org/crisismap/2012_us_wildfires

 

[triforcharity]

Perhaps you missed where I wrote, "Think of it as the difference between climate and weather."

Are you going to explain why you believe insurance companies are not smart for doing what they are doing? I'm interested to hear your perspective.

I did explain. Fire risk maps have always been problematic IMPO. These maps can change from day to day, and month to month, depending on the moisture content of the area. To base an insurance decision on something that changes often, is not smart IMPO. YMMV.

 

[crescent]

I did explain. Fire risk maps have always been problematic IMPO. These maps can change from day to day, and month to month, depending on the moisture content of the area.

Are you aware of fire regimes? I mean, the way some vegetation types are mostly likely to have fires within certain intervals. Does the term "Fire Return Interval" mean anything to you? How about "Fuel Loading"?

I mean, some places really can be calculated to be a significantly greater risk of wildfire than other places. There is a strongly stochastic element to it, just like with earthquake risk - but it does not change the fact that some areas are much more likely to experience frequent high intensity fire than others, and that can be mapped. (Just like some areas are known to be at greater risk of seismic damage, information used to adjust insurance rates and building codes in different places.)

This is not woo - this is the sort of information fire managers use to decide where and when to do management ignited/prescribed fires, or when to allow natural ignition wildfires to burn so to achieve management objectives, rather than immediately suppressing all of them. That information could just as easily be used to get a general idea of the risk that homes or other structures in the area face.

To base an insurance decision on something that changes often, is not smart IMPO. YMMV.

Frau Farbissina's comparison of weather and climate are apt. The risk can change from day to day, week to week - but that does not change the fact that some areas are much more likely to experience frequent high intensity fires than other areas. Areas of high risk have many days every year where the fire danger is high or extreme; areas of low risk have few such days. The fact that an area with a long Fire Return Interval (meaning the interval between fires is typically long) has an occasional day of Extreme fire danger does not mean that area is as inherently risky an area with a short Fire Return Interval.

This is all calculated. This is what the scientists and fire managers with the Federal Land Management agencies do; this is what the scientists with the USGS do, this is what the fire science programs at the land grant universities do.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm well aware of that. However, that's not what I was talking about. Also, as an aside, you do realize I have a degree in fire science, right? I've done many studies on controlled burns, land management, and fire risk assessment. I'm absolutely in agreement with the conclusions of controlled burns, land management, and the like. I've looked at the data cited here. It's not good data IMO, to base any insurance decisions on. THAT is what I was addressing. Sorry, it's my fault I wasn't clear.

 

[crescent]

triforcharity,

That makes more sense. I didn't know you have a relevant degree, I apologize if I came off as condescending.

I guess I am not understanding why fire risk maps are not good enough to base insurance rates on. It might vary from day to day, but over the longer term some areas can be more risky than others. It is unpredictable in that the specific trigger factors are stochastic, but so are seismic activity and hailstorms - and insurance companies can factor those into insurance rates.

Am I understanding that you are more concerned about the specifics of the specific maps cited in this thread, and the processes and information that went into making them, rather than the concept of fire risk maps in general?

 

[Hellbound]

Just as a thought, wouldn't insurance companies be more likely to use historical and statistical data than a fire map? I would expect any long-term trends to show up in an examination of the numbers for losses due to fire in various towns, and considering this is data insurance companies look at anyway to determine rates, I don't think risk maps would necessarily add anything.

I mean, actuarial departments are there for a reason

 

[triforcharity]

triforcharity,

That makes more sense. I didn't know you have a relevant degree, I apologize if I came off as condescending.

No problem, and you didn't. It's not something you'd have known, as we've not interacted in the 9/11 CT subsection that I am aware of.

I guess I am not understanding why fire risk maps are not good enough to base insurance rates on.

IMO, because they change so often, and can be inaccurate from even the day before. IF insurance companies use these type of maps, again, IMO, they're using bad data. If they look at overall, over years and years, then that would seem to make more sense.

It might vary from day to day, but over the longer term some areas can be more risky than others. It is unpredictable in that the specific trigger factors are stochastic, but so are seismic activity and hailstorms - and insurance companies can factor those into insurance rates.

Agreed. IF they're using years of data, plotting the points, using maps of previous fires, using the averages and what not, then it's a little better. However, I'm not all that familiar with the techniques used by insurance companies, so I'll look into it. See if I can find some data that they use.

Am I understanding that you are more concerned about the specifics of the specific maps cited in this thread, and the processes and information that went into making them, rather than the concept of fire risk maps in general?

I'm not a big fan of fire risk maps in general. Many wildfires are started by negligence or humans, and that is a variable that cannot be accounted for. It's an unknown. Sometimes just freak storms can cause wildfires due to lightning. There's so many variables that would be difficult to account for. I would venture to say that fire risk maps, such as what we've seen linked here, are accurate to within about 60%. However, some that I have seen when I studied land management in school, were off by as much as 80%. We looked at the fire risk maps, and overlaid them with known fires from the current month, and only about 3-4 (IIRC) were anywhere near where the risk maps predicted. We considered them accurate if the maps were within 100 miles of known fires.

 

[dudalb]

And Australian policy for that matter.

US DOI Bureau Of Land Management policy also.

I have been on vacation for a week,and when I got back to work today at the BLM State office,the flag was still at half mast. The guys in the Fire Management Department are still slightly in a state of shock. The Hotshot community is pretty small, and you tend to know people either personally or by reputation.

As for the guy who said that Wildfire fighters are not heros,if I said what I thought of f him I would be banned for a week. I predict his career at JREF will not end well.

 

[dudalb]

Well I'm sure Modesto is less likely to burn down considering where it is than my town. But my town is really no different than hundreds of other small towns in the mountains. We are all at risk up here.

And one unique thing about California is that several huge cities have huge tracts of wild land in them. Look at The Oakland Fire back in 1991.Same thing in Los Angeles. Ever since the Oakland fire, most metro area fire departments in California include basic wild fire fighting techniques as part of their basic training as well as the standard Urban fire techniques.

 

[dudalb]

The US has cars and a number of other forms of technology for moving people. Given the risks involved wouldn't it make more sense to maintain perminant firebreaks around major settlements and let the rest burn as it will.

Never been in the AMerican West, have you?

 

[Travis]

What do you mean by "it" here? Fire risk maps?

Did someone say the existence of fire risk maps makes fighting fires less necessary?

These maps apparently are used for developing zoning laws. Here's some information about how California uses the maps.

www wildfireprograms usda gov
/search.html?displayId=214

The Federal government has proposals for ordinances as well:
www fs fed us
/psw/publications/documents/gtr-050/land-use.html

In the above document they cite three hazard classes: moderate, high and extreme. The recommended density for individual buildings is 3 per acre, 1 per acre, and 1 per 4-5 acres respectively.

I don't claim any expertise in this area. I asked a simple question, and my research has turned up lots of fascinating information. It seems these maps will result in building (or rebuilding) towns in ways that are safer, which hopefully will save lives of both civilians and firefighters.

I'm sorry. I thought you were implying my town wasn't worth saving and we needed to be taught a lesson for daring to rebuild after the last bad fire (which was in 1910 as I recall).

A misunderstanding I guess.

 

[newyorkguy]

Thirteen of the nineteen fallen firefighters have been denied death benefits by the City of Prescott. This because they are considered part-time (seasonal) employees.

While the families of all nineteen of the deceased firefighters will receive a payout of $328,000 from the federal government, as well as worker’s compensation, only the families of the six who were considered full-time employees will receive death benefits that include lifetime survivors’ benefits, a lump sum life insurance payment, and health insurance coverage. Those benefits are estimated to be worth millions of dollars.

Link

Although the federal payout is generous, being that most of these firefighters were quite young, over what would've been their expected lifetime, it won't pay their kids doctors bills, or see them through college.

 

[Puppycow]

Thirteen of the nineteen fallen firefighters have been denied death benefits by the City of Prescott. This because they are considered part-time (seasonal) employees.



Link

Although the federal payout is generous, being that most of these firefighters were quite young, over what would've been their expected lifetime, it won't pay their kids doctors bills, or see them through college.

Outrageous. They should be shamed into doing the right thing.

 

[lionking]

Outrageous. They should be shamed into doing the right thing.

Not so sure. $300k plus workers compensation is a pretty decent payout. I think a distinction between full-time and volunteer firefighters is reasonable.

The heroism of all firefighters is not in dispute, and is not measured in compensation to families.

 

[KatieG]

If being classified as a seasonal employee was understood by these men, that's what it is. Part time workers are not eligible for the same benefits as full time workers in the US. Sucks to high heaven, but that's how it works. It's possible the men had personal life insurance policies, although as said, they were pretty young.

Prudently invested, $300k+ isn't a bad starting point. Keeping a similar lifestyle to the one you have, designating specific money to go to college funds, protecting your tax bracket, etc. I suspect many of these women will marry again in the future so there would be the double income again.

It's all very messy and depressing.

 

[Swagomatic]

Currently, there is an effort within the legislature to retroactively provide full time benefits to the families. I am guessing it will be successful.