Report rips costly decisions in California wildfire fight

When a wildfire burned across Big Sur two years ago and threatened hundreds of homes scattered on the scenic hills, thousands of firefighters responded with overwhelming force, attacking flames from the air and ground.

In the first week, the blaze destroyed 57 homes and killed a bulldozer operator, then moved into remote wilderness in the Los Padres National Forest. Yet for nearly three more months the attack barely let up.

The Soberanes Fire burned its way into the record books, costing $262 million as the most expensive wildland firefight in U.S. history in what a new report calls an "extreme example of excessive, unaccountable, budget-busting suppression spending."

The report by Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology criticizes fire managers for not adapting their approach to the changing nature of the blaze. The nonprofit group, which gets funding from the Leonard DiCaprio Foundation and other environmental organizations, advocates ending "warfare on wildfires" by ecologically managing them.

The report suggests the Forest Service response was the result of a "use it or lose it" attitude to spend its entire budget, which had been boosted by $700 million because of a destructive 2015 fire season. The agency managed to spend nearly all its 2016 money in a less-active fire season on about half the amount of land that burned the year before.

"They just kept going crazy on it," report author Timothy Ingalsbee said. "It wasn't demand-driven. It was supply-driven. They had all this extra money Congress had given them, and they had to justify that."

Forest Service officials would not comment directly on the report. After asking The Associated Press to provide written questions, the agency declined to answer them and issued a short statement saying it was committed to reducing costs in similarly large fires.

"Protection of people first and then resources are our primary considerations," the statement said. "Every fire is evaluated to determine the appropriate strategy. We continually look for opportunities to improve outcomes and accountability and to find more cost-efficient and effective methods of managing wildfires."

In addition to burning 206 square miles (534 square kilometers), the smoky fire closed signature parks in the area and put a damper on tourism in Big Sur during the peak season of its only industry. Monterey County estimated a 40 percent loss in revenue for the summer season in the area.

An internal Forest Service review produced last year and obtained by the AP reached some of the same conclusions as Ingalsbee.

For example, the department's review found that from Aug. 9 to Sept. 29, 2016, the number of threatened structures remained at 400 even as the fire grew by more than 90 square miles (230 square kilometers), which indicated the risk to property had abated as the flames burned into the wilderness. During that period, firefighting costs grew by $140 million.

The review found forest managers didn't think they could deviate from the "overwhelming force concept" aimed at suppression. It also said the agency's protocol for managing long-term wildfires "does not sufficiently evaluate and adjust to changing risk."

One challenge fire commanders faced was an outdated forest management plan for Los Padres that called for full suppression of all wildfires, Ingalsbee said.

Mike Warren, a retired National Park Service firefighter who reviewed the report, questioned the wisdom of suppressing fires in remote wilderness where flames can help eliminate brush and other flammable vegetation that could fuel a later wildfire.

When Warren was fire management officer at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, they would let blazes burn in the wilderness if they were confident the fire would stay in the park.

The challenge in a place like the tourist-dependent Big Sur area is pressure from politicians, homeowners, businesses, loggers and ranchers to control the fire, Warren said.

"When is enough enough?" he said. "When do you back off say, 'This is it. We're just going to let it do its thing.' That takes some real political will."

The Forest Service's internal review inspired Ingalsbee to file public records requests for other documents that led to his report.

— About a fifth of the area burned was from fires set to clear brush and vegetation between outer perimeters and the active fire. One of these blazes jumped fire lines. These burnout operations created additional smoke and cost an estimated $50 million.

— A nearly $39 million air campaign, including large air tankers that cost $5,720 per hour, was largely ineffective. Retardant is effective at slowing flames only where ground crews can remove vegetation to create containment lines. But drops were done deep in steep, rugged wilderness where it was too dangerous to send crews, and even where flames never reached.

— Bulldozers, which cost $1,700 per hour, tore up wilderness, creating what Ingalsbee called "ghost roads" that will remain for years. The Forest Service spent an estimated $1 million a day for weeks repairing damage done by dozers.

The report concluded that once the blaze that broke out July 22, 2016, entered wilderness, there was little chance of stopping it before fall rains fell.

Chad Hanson, an expert on fire and director of the John Muir Project, a nonprofit environmental group, said the cost was stunning, but the approach to fire was business as usual.

"It's sort of shocking that this massive amount of taxpayer money is being spent trying to suppress backcountry fires that are weather-driven and can't be stopped until the weather changes, rather than focusing resources on protecting communities," Hanson said. "On the other hand, I'm not surprised the Forest Service is doing this because it's been their practice for years."

One beneficiary of the firefighting effort was Tom Little Bear Nason, who lives in a homestead in the national forest his family has owned for 150 years. He was also a contractor on the fire, with a team of dozer operators.

Nason, chairman of the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, credited the suppression effort with helping save his property. But he said costs shot up when managers went overboard on backfires and cut contingency lines too far from the fire.

He also criticized the leadership on the fire, which changed every couple of weeks, for disregarding a pre-attack fire plan drawn up by local, state and federal agencies, tribal leaders, environmentalists and homeowners that included information on protecting historic and cultural sites.

He said those plans "got chucked out the window" and led to significant losses. A homesteader cabin burned to the ground, sacred sites such as burial grounds were plowed over, and a rock where tribal members gave birth was stuck by a bulldozer.

"Lots of efforts went to protect communities that went above and beyond" what was necessary, Nason said. "They were acting on the worst-case scenario."

 

December 15, 2018

Sources: ABC News

Related news

  • F.T.C. Is Said to Be Considering Large Facebook Fines

    F.T.C. Is Said to Be Considering Large Facebook Fines

    ced stages of its investigation into whether Facebook violated privacy rules and is expected to seek large fines from the company, according to two people familiar with the inquiry.</p><p>The five members of the commission met in mid-December to discuss the investigation, according to the people, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is not public. The meeting is a sign that the investigation is far along, the people said, because the commissioners rarely meet in the early stages of an inquiry.</p><p>The investigation, which began in late March, is continuing, and the commissioners and staff have not reached a final conclusion, including how much the agency might seek in fines, the people said. Consumer-protection and enforcement staff members have provided updates on what they believe is evidence of privacy violations, but they have not submitted a final report.</p><p>The commissioners would vote on any recommendations from the staff, including whether to pursue fines or other penalties. They do not always approve staff recommendations.</p><p>The highest financial penalty imposed on a tech company was Google’s $22 million settlement in 2012 for privacy violations. In the December meeting, the commissioners discussed a higher fine for Facebook, the people said.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission declined to comment. Facebook, which has repeatedly defended its actions, also declined to comment.</p><p>The investigation is seen as a litmus test of the government’s ability to protect consumers in the digital age. All five commissioners have testified to Congress that they need more resources to go up against big corporations in enforcement actions. Their agency does not have the authority to create privacy rules, but it can police businesses through a broad mandate to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair practices.</p><p>The investigation into Facebook began with revelations by The New York Times that a British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, had obtained data from tens of millions of Facebook users without permission. The report ignited calls for investigations by global regulators and the summoning of Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, to testify before Congress last April.</p><p>A consent decree from 2011 requires Facebook to seek permission from users of plans to share their data with third parties. The trade commission also requires Facebook to notify it when third parties misuse user data.</p><p>Over the past nine months, enforcement and consumer-protection officials have looked into a series of additional reports by The Times and other publications that raised questions about whether Facebook’s use of data violated its consent decree, according to former officials. The expanded investigation included Facebook’s partnerships with hardware and other tech giants like Netflix and Amazon that gave other companies access to Facebook user data without explicit permission.</p><p>Facebook has said Cambridge Analytica told it that the firm had deleted the data. The social network has hired scores of lawyers and privacy experts to handle the commission’s investigation, and Facebook’s top privacy officials and lawyers are in regular conversation with officials leading the investigation.</p><p>For 17 months of the Trump administration, the Federal Trade Commission was run by two commissioners. In May, the new slate of commissioners arrived, all appointed by President Trump. Three members are typically from the president’s party, and two from the other party.</p><p>The agency’s chairman, Joseph J. Simons, an antitrust lawyer, has declined to comment about the investigation. He has sent strict orders throughout the agency against leaking information about the inquiry to reporters.</p><p>One of the people familiar with the investigation said the meeting last month, though unusual, had been called partly because three of the commissioners were new, and because the case warranted an update from enforcement and consumer-protection staff.</p><p>The people said the investigation had been slowed by the government shutdown, now in its fifth week. The hallways at the agency are empty, and just the five commissioners and a smattering of other employees have arrived for work during the shutdown.</p><p>Mike Isaac contributed reporting from San Francisco.</p>

    1 January 19, 2019
  • Bits: The Week in Tech: How Google and Facebook Spawned Surveillance Capitalism

    Bits: The Week in Tech: How Google and Facebook Spawned Surveillance Capitalism

    rter. And I’m writing to you from wintry New York City as the government shutdown increases financial pressure on federal workers and the tech elites jet off to Davos, Switzerland, to hobnob at the World Economic Forum.</p><p>Published on Tuesday, the book argues that digital services developed by the likes of Google and Facebook should not be viewed as the latest iteration of industrialization. Instead, Dr. Zuboff writes, they represent a new and problematic market form that trades in predicting and influencing human behavior.</p><p>“Surveillance capitalism has taken human experience, specifically private human experience, and unilaterally claimed it as something to be bought and sold in the marketplace,” Dr. Zuboff told me during a visit to The Times’s office. “This new kind of marketplace trades in behavioral futures. It’s like a form of derivative. But it’s about us.”</p><p>Yet most of us are not aware that platforms like Google and Facebook may track and analyze our every search, location, like, video, photo, post and punctuation mark the better to try to sway us, she said.</p><p>The technologies that power the behavior speculation market, of course, have spread far beyond online ads.</p><p>The flash-trading in human behavioral data was not inevitable.</p><p>In her book, Dr. Zuboff describes how Google, in its early days, used the keywords that people typed in to improve its search engine even as it paid scant attention to the collateral data — like users’ keyword phrasing, click patterns and spellings — that came with it. Pretty soon, however, Google began harvesting this surplus information, along with other details like users’ web-browsing activities, to infer their interests and target them with ads.</p><p>“We saw these digital services were free, and we thought, you know, ‘We’re making a reasonable trade-off with giving them valuable data,’” Dr. Zuboff told me. “But now that’s reversed. They’ve decided that we’re free, that they can take our experience for free and translate it into behavioral data. And so we are just the source of raw material.”</p><p>Of course, tech companies tend to bristle at the word “surveillance.” They associate it with government spying on individuals — not with their own snooping on users and trying to sway them at scale.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Twitter 'very sorry' for security flaw that made private tweets public

    Twitter 'very sorry' for security flaw that made private tweets public

    ritten, or redistributed. ©2019 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. </p><p>The glitch, which was fixed earlier this week, existed for more than four years, according to the tech giant.</p><p>In its statement, Twitter did not say how many users were affected by the security glitch.</p><p>&#x201C;We recognize and appreciate the trust you place in us, and are committed to earning that trust every day,&#x201D; it added. &#x201C;We&#x2019;re very sorry this happened and we&#x2019;re conducting a full review to help prevent this from happening again.&#x201D;</p><p>Users of Twitter on Apple&#x2019;s iOS operating system or the web were not impacted by the bug, according to Twitter. The company says that the issue was fixed on Jan. 14. &#x201C;We&apos;ll provide updates if other important information becomes available,&#x201D; it added.</p><p>&#x201C;We&apos;ve informed people we know were affected by this issue and have turned &quot;Protect your Tweets&quot; back on for them if it was disabled,&#x201D; Twitter said, in its statement. &#x201C;We are providing this broader notice through the Twitter Help Center since we can&#x2019;t confirm every account that may have been impacted. We encourage you to review your privacy settings to ensure that your &#x2018;Protect your Tweets&#x2019; setting reflects your preferences.&#xA0;&#x201C;</p><p>Fox News has reached out to Twitter with a request for additional information on the security glitch.</p><p>This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Work Friend: If You Don’t Think Your Office Is a War Zone You Are Fooling Yourself

    Work Friend: If You Don’t Think Your Office Is a War Zone You Are Fooling Yourself

    hey act accordingly.</p><p>Sometimes when men say that women “scare” someone in the office, they actually mean “respect.” Your credentials or performance may intimidate your colleagues. That is fine. Most men spend their lives trying to make that happen!</p><p>Oh, I actually think you have already figured this out. Offices run on you — offices are you. The super-competent who can see more than four hours ahead, while the people “in charge” blunder from endless meeting to endless meeting, making plans that’ll get whiteboarded away next week. We don’t value this kind of work most of the time (though I can think of a couple exceptions).</p><p>You could rebrand yourself and look for new work accordingly. You are a chief of staff. You are a senior project manager. You are a chief of operations. This has the advantage of bringing your level of caring into a more correct level of authority, salary and respect.</p><p>You could also stop caring and devote your apparently fearsome energies into a project worthy of your time — a local literacy project, a food bank, a refugee settlement group. Then you could clock out of your job at 5 and get your satisfaction elsewhere. I can imagine that would lead to a rewarding career transition for you, too. What if your passion and your abilities were joined in the same enterprise! You’d be unstoppable and happy at the same time.</p><p>Your intention to not sleep with your co-workers is appreciated. (From 10 weeks of monitoring the workfriend@nytimes.com inbox, I know that all of you are sleeping with each other, and I promise it will only end in tears and/or children — equally terrible fates.)</p><p>This is, secretly, a hard question, because the dating apps are a desert of emotional sustenance. They are only effective like Bitcoin mining is effective. You have to put in the hours and the electricity. You have to grind through the leveling-up of bad dates and endless swiping to actually have intercourse. (To be fair, it was much worse in the olden days, let me tell you! You would meet some seemingly wonderful guy and there was no open-source spreadsheet on the internet to tell you that said man was in fact a bad man.)</p><p>Your other options include: trivia nights, live music shows in small venues and, I dunno, the gym? (Do straight people actually ever hook up at the gym? Seems unlikely.) Get back on that Hinge, I guess. Only 418 more swiping hours until you identify someone you might feel some connection with. Your question has given me a little more empathy for all the office-sex emails.</p><p>Fun! You have a juncture here in which you can change or ruin or derail or improve a life. I (like most people) often balk at taking action in these moments, feeling my hand on the crossroads of someone’s path, to mangle a small group of metaphors.</p><p>If you intervene, you’d want to have a conversation like:</p><p>What qualities are common in the people who are succeeding on management’s terms?</p><p>What are they telling you in your reviews about ways you should improve or change?</p><p>But even if you do all that work, it probably won’t matter. People hire and promote people they want to spend time with. This is true no matter how high-minded they are about opportunity and fairness. People hire and promote people who solve a problem for them. And that problem can take a lot of forms, but the one thing people don’t do is promote people who are making problems. People are animals.</p><p>So, instead, you should make a plan together to go start your own firm where no one is going to police you for your atypicality. It’s not that hard! Go find someone psychotically outgoing to sell your services, and y’all can happily sit in your nerd cave all day working up some hot spreadsheets. Any idiot can start a business. It’s not really any worse than going to someone else’s office every day. At least you nerds know what you’re getting into with each other. </p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • AT&T to Advertise on YouTube Again After a Nearly 2-Year Holdout

    AT&T to Advertise on YouTube Again After a Nearly 2-Year Holdout

    ts advertising dollars from YouTube in 2017 because the brand was appearing alongside offensive videos. But on Friday, after a nearly two-year holdout, the company said it had been persuaded to resume advertising on the video platform.</p><p>“The testing took time, and we needed to be 100 percent confident throughout our organization that it met the standards that we were aiming for,” Fiona Carter, AT&amp;T’s chief brand officer, said in an interview. “We want a near-zero chance of our advertising appearing next to objectionable content, and that’s a high standard.”</p><p>The advertiser exodus brought a focus to the potential risks of digital ads, which often follow individuals on whatever content they are viewing. Questions were raised about what that meant for advertisers, which could inadvertently end up funding disturbing material and be associated with such content by viewers.</p><p>“We care deeply about where we appear and whether it reflects our values and whether it breaks that trust with our consumers,” Ms. Carter said. “It was a moment to remind us that marketers must have their hands on the wheel at all times of their brands’ destiny.”</p><p>Testing that AT&amp;T conducted after the problem arose showed that it was widespread. Ms. Carter gave credit to Google’s and YouTube’s leaders, who “leaned into the issue when they realized from the evidence we produced that perhaps it was a broader issue than they were aware of.”</p><p>Marketers and their agencies have also learned more about the types of content that they may want to avoid. For example, Ms. Carter said, AT&amp;T looks to avoid gaming videos, where the chances of unsavory chatter and behavior may increase.</p><p>“Having to have more subscribers and more viewing hours has really helped with eliminating fringe content that we might not want to advertise against,” Ms. Carter said.</p><p>In AT&amp;T’s latest test of YouTube’s Brand Suitability System, which avoids categories like violence, extremist and hate speech, and adult content, almost zero ads ran alongside offensive content.</p><p>Procter &amp; Gamble spent $2.8 billion on ads in 2017, according to data from Kantar Media. AT&amp;T, the second-biggest advertiser in the United States, spent $2.4 billion in the same period.</p><p>“Over the past year, we’ve worked hard to address concerns raised by our customers,” Debbie Weinstein, vice president of YouTube Video Global Solutions, said in a statement. “We’re committed to retaining their trust in YouTube, and ensuring they can realize the unique value of our platform.”</p><p>“Technological advancements mean you have to be on your game and you have to be constantly vigilant in this area,” Ms. Carter said.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  •  Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    ay were inspired by a Swedish student's weekly "school strike."</p><p> In Berlin, protesters focused on an upcoming political decision on when to end the use of coal in the country.</p><p> Germany still relies heavily on lignite coal, a fossil fuel which produces large amounts of greenhouse gases that heat the atmosphere.</p><p> An expert panel is expected to publish non-binding recommendations later this month for how Germany can achieve the transition from coal to renewable energy in the coming decades.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  •  Oxford suspends research funding from China's Huawei

    Oxford suspends research funding from China's Huawei

    and funding donations from Huawei amid growing security concerns about the Chinese telecom giant.</p><p> It's another setback for Huawei's image in Europe, an important market for the company, which has been effectively blocked in the U.S.</p><p> The university said in a statement Thursday that Oxford "will not pursue new funding opportunities" with Huawei or related companies, though two existing research projects will continue.</p><p> The decision was made "in the light of public concerns raised in recent months" surrounding the company's U.K. partnerships.</p><p> Britain's defense secretary and its intelligence chief both voiced concerns last month about Huawei's involvement in the country's rollout of 5G networks.</p><p> Huawei said it was "not informed of this decision" and awaits the university's full explanation.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  •  Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    Students in Germany, Switzerland protest climate change

    ay were inspired by a Swedish student's weekly "school strike."</p><p> In Berlin, protesters focused on an upcoming political decision on when to end the use of coal in the country.</p><p> Germany still relies heavily on lignite coal, a fossil fuel which produces large amounts of greenhouse gases that heat the atmosphere.</p><p> An expert panel is expected to publish non-binding recommendations later this month for how Germany can achieve the transition from coal to renewable energy in the coming decades.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Pornhub reports jump in viewership amid partial government shutdown

    Pornhub reports jump in viewership amid partial government shutdown

    ritten, or redistributed. ©2019 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. </p><p>The porn-viewing site&apos;s traffic &#x2014; pre-shutdown &#x2014; was usually at its peak from 10 p.m. to midnight. But, post-shutdown, &quot;late-night traffic increased by up to 14% above average, while early morning traffic from 9am to 10am had the smallest change.&quot;</p><p>In Washington D.C. alone, Pornhub claims its hourly traffic has increased an average of 6.32 percent, with female traffic, in particular, increasing 12.3 percent above average.</p><p>Both Democrats and Republicans are at a standstill as President Donald Trump continues to demand $5.7 billion for a border wall, a request that some Democrats have described as immoral.</p><p>This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019
  • Facebook employees caught posting 5-star Portal reviews on Amazon

    Facebook employees caught posting 5-star Portal reviews on Amazon

    ritten, or redistributed. ©2019 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. </p><p>An Amazon user named Tim Chappell said in his review that he paid $1,150 to buy four Portals and one Portal Plus &#x201C;on a chance&#x201D; right before Thanksgiving &#x2014; although he isn&#x2019;t a big Facebook user.</p><p>&#x201C;I would recommend this product to anyone who has a family or friends that they enjoy staying in contact with,&#x201D; Chappell wrote. &#x201C;So much better than just a plain phone call.&#x201D;</p><p>VP AR/VR at Facebook Andrew Bosworth tweeted Thursday that Facebook told its employees that &#x201C;we, unequivocally, DO NOT want Facebook employees to engage in leaving reviews for the products that we sell to Amazon.&#x201D;</p><p>Lara Sasken Lindenbaum, a&#xA0;Facebook spokeswoman, told Fox News via email Thursday night: &#x201C;All employees have removed their Amazon reviews as we asked them to.&#x201D;</p><p>This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.</p>

    1 January 18, 2019

Comments