Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eleanor Norris's avatar

Thanks Claudia for this very helpful overview. My other sources of those don't provide what you do.

Expand full comment
Evan Frost's avatar

You write that "identifying the severity of the risk of private land adjacent to federal land doesn’t mean much (in my opinion) if the federal land isn’t going to be managed to reduce the risk of a wildfire that can be expected to move onto surrounding land." Yet research has shown the opposite trend -- the majority of large and destructive fires (to human infrastructure) actually begin on and move from private land onto public land, not vice versa. See for example Downing et al. 2022, "Public lands are not the primary source of fires that destroyed the most structures." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06002-3. So reducing fire hazard on *private lands* in the WUI is actually most important if the goal is to reduce structure losses, etc. Moreover, as has also been shown in many studies, increasingly extreme fire weather, longer fire seasons and growing atmospheric aridity (all related to climate change) are becoming the primary drivers of fire behavior in CA. Without addressing these issues, it's we cannot expect fire behavior will become less intense or structures less threatened by fire, even with increased fuel reduction. A lot of peer-reviewed science supports this connection, for example https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EF001050 and https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7?ftag=MSF0951a18 and https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2213815120

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts