Environmental problem: Road Widening

By: Jeus Ezekiel F. Galano, 12 STEM-A

URL Author Webpage Title Year Article

Published
Is it an https://www.enviro Jacob Hill The 2017 Roads are increasingly common in today's world as human development
issue? nmentalscience.or Environmental expands and people increasingly rely on cars for transportation on a daily basis.
g/roads Impact of The United States contains over 4 million miles of roadways and an estimated
Roads 20% of land in the country is impacted by the presence of roads.1 This large
network of roads has dramatically altered the landscape and can impact wildlife
in a number of deleterious ways. In addition to causing mortality, roads can also
shift population demographics and be a source of pollution into the environment.
Studying the ecological impacts of roads is an important area of study in
conservation biology and environmental science, as the impacts often extend far
beyond the surface of the road itself.

Mortality & Population Declines

When animals cross roads, mortality is often the result. In fact, road mortality is
the leading source of mortality to many wildlife populations and an estimated 1
million vertebrates die on roads every day in the United States.2 This rate of
mortality can severely threaten animals and has been identified as a leading
cause of decline in some populations.

While the consequences of road mortality can be severe, many factors influence
the degree to which roads impact particular animal populations. When a road
crosses through an animal's preferred habitat, the chances increase for road
mortality. For example, Highway 27 in Florida that passes over a lake inhabited
by many turtles has been shown to have very high turtle mortality rates and be
one of the most dangerous roads for wildlife in the country.3 Particular behaviors
also put some animals more at risk. Chimney swifts eat insects and fly close to
the ground as they follow prey. When these birds follow prey that fly over roads,
it increases their chances of being struck by a car.4 Groups of animals like
amphibians that have regular mass migrations are also particularly vulnerable. 4

Some animals are prone to road mortality due to their natural defense
mechanisms, which although effective when dealing with natural predation, are
often poorly equipped to handle the dangers posed by cars. Turtles often
perceive cars as a threat and draw into their shell to protect themselves, which
can put them at risk for getting struck by a car because they stay on the road
longer.5 Snakes may also become immobilized when approached by a car and
may remain immobilized for a minute after a car passes.6 Venomous snakes
may be less inclined to flee from a perceived threat because they typically use
venom for defense.6 Turkey vultures that normally fly away from predators may
be unable to initiate flight quickly enough when approached by a fast-moving
vehicle.7 The way in which animals naturally respond to threats may increase
their risk of being stuck by cars.

Animals may also be attracted to the road surface. Reptiles like snakes and
turtles sometimes bask on the warm asphalt of the road to regulate their body
temperatures.5 Many scavengers prey on the carcasses of animals that have
been killed on the road. These kinds of behavior increase the risk of mortality as
they cause animals to spend more time around the road.

Rates of mortality are closely linked with movement patterns, as more

movement generally incurs a greater chance of coming into contact with a road.
Animals with large home ranges, such as Florida panthers with ranges of up to
630 km2, have a high chance of encountering roads as they traverse such large
distances.8 Movement during particular life stages can also result in peaks in
mortality. These patterns are often associated with reproduction, as when gravid
turtles undergo migrations to seek out a site to nest.9 In some snake species,
the male can increase its home range up to 6 times as it searches for a mate.
Many reptiles begin dispersing immediately after hatching, which also results in
mortality peaks.10 In red foxes, the female repeatedly visits cubs at breeding
sites, sometimes up to 10 times in a single night, which increases the chance for
mortality.11 Some studies have reported movement rates as the single greatest
factor influencing the risk of road mortality.10

These specific factors that influence mortality can also result in demographic
shifts in the population when particular segments of the population are killed. For
example, aquatic female turtles make egg-laying migrations that males do not
make, which puts them at a greater risk for mortality. As a result, turtle
populations near roads can become male-biased as females are differentially
killed.9 These types of shifts can further exacerbate population declines and
threaten population viability. In some populations, the presence of roads has
been identified as a component in the “extinction vortex” by amplifying the
threats animals already face.12

Habitat Fragmentation & Alteration

In addition to causing direct mortality, roads can have a number of indirect
impacts such as habitat fragmentation. This can result from either animals not
being able to cross the road without being killed or through avoidance of the
road. For example, some snakes have been shown to turn around and not cross
the road when they encounter it.6 Some animals avoid the surface of the road
even when there are no cars driving on it. Birds that typically fly short distances
from one tree to the next may also be hesitant to fly across a large open space,
which restricts their movements across roads.13

When roads create barriers to movement they can impact animal populations in
many ways. One of these is through prohibiting gene flow. For example, in
timber rattlesnakes, a study of genetics at hibernacula showed that in
hibernacula that were blocked off by roads, genetic diversity was lower than in
those that occurred across contiguous habitats.12 Additionally, some male
snakes follow trails of pheromones along the ground in order to locate mates.
Roads can disrupt the pheromone trail and make it difficult for males to follow
the trails and find a mate.14

Animals may also suffer by not being able to access particular habitats. In times
of drought, roads can prohibit animals from reaching water.15 A study of turtles
showed that roads could prevent gravid females from reaching their preferred
nesting sites. As a result, they were relegated to suboptimal habitats where
predation on their eggs was higher, which decreased reproductive success.16

In addition to fragmenting habitat, constructing a road alters the habitat. When a

road runs through a forest, it creates an edge habitat along the portion of the
forest that fringes the road. This can have consequences for birds, as predation
rates on bird nests are sometimes higher in edge habitats. This is because
predators can prey on nests better in the edge, where the forest canopy offers
less protection to nests.17 Some species of turtles prefer to nest along the edge
of the road because it creates an ideal nesting habitat. In highly degraded
wetlands, the edge of roads may be the only viable nesting habitat left available
to these turtles.18 Unfortunately, the nesting turtles put themselves at greater
risk of mortality as they cross roads, and hatchlings may also be struck by cars
as they disperse from the nest after hatching. Frogs have also been shown to
experience higher predation rates closer to roads.19 Through altering the habitat
and creating an edge, roads can impact animals even when direct mortality is
not a result.

Pollution
Roads can also be a conduit for pollutants into the environment. The debris from
tires on the road can decrease the time to metamorphosis of wood frogs.20
Deicing salts that run off from roads into adjacent ponds can decrease
survivorship of wood frogs and spotted salamanders.21 Frogs have been shown
to have higher skeletal abnormalities closer to roads, possibly as a result of
contamination.19 In addition to causing mortality, deicing salts can alter the
 behavior of frogs and decrease locomotor performance. This can impact fitness,
as they may be less adept at catching prey or eluding predators.22 Roads also
carry oils from cars that travel across them, which have the potential to harm
wildlife when they enter the environment.

Pollution from roads extends beyond just chemicals, as light and noise pollution
from roads can be detrimental as well. Noise from cars can impact birds by
disrupting acoustic communication and interfering with warning signals, leading
to bird population declines in the proximity of roads.23 Not all birds are equally
affected, however, as those that have song frequencies similar to car
frequencies are more likely to be absent from roadside areas. In addition to
decreasing the numbers of birds, road noise can alter the community
composition of birds as certain species are differentially excluded.24 Similarly,
roads can interfere with the calling of frogs and make it difficult for them to find a
mate.25

Animals that rely on light for the control of biological activities can be impacted
by the lights along roads. Robins that use sunlight as a cue to initiate songs in
the morning can mistake lights for the sun and sing in the middle of the night.26
Road lights can also alter the routes that bats fly. Exposure to artificial lights at
night may delay the time to metamorphosis in some frog species.27 Hatchling
sea turtles that use light to navigate to the ocean can also be confused by road
lights and go toward the road instead of going to the water. When this happens,
they often die from dehydration, predators or get hit by cars on the road and
they never reach the ocean. Nesting females that emerge onto the beach to lay
their eggs can also become disoriented by road lights and have difficulty making
it back to the water.28

When land is cleared for roads, it often facilitates the spread of invasive species.
Cane toads are incredibly invasive in Australia and they have used roadside
areas for movement, which has increased their range.29 The area along the
road also provides an ideal habitat for invasive fire ants that build mounds by the
road.30 Several invasive species of plants also infiltrate habitats using roads.
Roads can facilitate invasions because these plants face less competition from
plants in a newly cleared area.
How do http://plazaperspe Adam WHY ROAD- 2017 Of all the unfounded myths that have wrecked our cities over the past 100 years,
people think ctive.com/road- Greenfield WIDENING one stands among the giants. It’s the belief that widening roads eases
about this widening/ DOESN’T congestion.
environmen WORK… AND
tal WHAT DOES You’ve probably heard people repeat this myth over the years – your in-laws,
problem? your neighbors, and perhaps even your mayor. Indeed, recently I personally
witnessed the mayors of both Austin and San Francisco, under pressure from
congestion-addled residents, say exactly this.

They’re all wrong. We’ve had the evidence for a century and cities have
proceeded as if they didn’t know. In the process, much that’s good about cities –
their charm, strong communities, convenience, safety, economic stability – has
been eroded. It would be no exaggeration to say that much of what separates
great and poor cities depends on how they’ve handled congestion.

What follows is the evidence for why road-widening doesn’t work as a

congestion-reliever, what road-widening actually achieves, and how congestion
should really be addressed. Read it, forward it, and don’t let anybody get away
with pushing road widening as a congestion solution.

CONGESTION SUCKS BUT NOT AS MUCH AS YOU MIGHT THINK

Congestion is hell. According to a Hewlett-Packard study, cited in the 2013 book
Happy City, people snarled in traffic suffer worse stress than fighter pilots and
riot police on the job. (Just don’t take that as a recommendation to become a
fighter pilot or a riot cop to avoid your commute.)

We all hate congestion. But how much of a problem is it objectively? Not as

much as you might think…

Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute (full presentation).

To many, congestion is one of society’s great evils. This is not the case. Even
the upper estimates of congestion costs show them to be minor compared to
vehicle ownership, parking costs, and air pollution impacts. Congestion isn’t a
major problem and certainly shouldn’t be addressed ahead of other more
damaging costs. In fact, congestion tends to increase in cities with higher GDP
per capita. It’s actually a sign of success!

WIDENING ROADS ONLY WORSENS CONGESTION

For many people, including state highway department employees (aka foxes
guarding the sheep), road widening is the magic pill to ease congestion. In fact,
widening roads to reduce congestion is worse than doing nothing.

The Katy Freeway, Houston. Credit: Chron.

One might assume that a wider road allows traffic to flow more smoothly by
allocating the same number of vehicles more space. This argument contains a
fatal flaw: When roads get wider more people start driving, a phenomenon
known as “induced demand”. People drive when they used to bike, walk, or take
public transit; they move farther away from their jobs in town and drive farther to
get there; they drive in rush hour when they used to drive at other times; and
businesses that depend more on roads will relocate to cities, bringing more truck
traffic with them.

(The common claim that getting more people onto bikes or into buses will take
more cars off the roads and ease congestion is also bogus. Induced demand
means that for every person that switches from driving to an alternative, another
driver will take their place. Certainly, alternatives to driving should be
encouraged for many reasons, but congestion relief shouldn’t be one of them.)

Houston’s Katy Freeway stands as only the most extreme in a long line of road
widening horror stories. In 2008 Texas pumped over $2.8 billion into widening
Katy to 23 lanes, making it the world’s widest freeway. The result? From 2011-
2014 the morning commute time rose by 30% and the evening commute by
55%. (And you’d never believe what’s now being proposed…)

Are the new drivers’ lives significantly better? It’s unlikely. Most of this extra
traffic, because it’s of the kind that’s easily given up when congestion gets bad,
is considered of marginal value. And the extra costs of collisions, vehicle
ownership, air pollution, and other costs (see the chart above) eat further into
the dubious benefits of all those new drivers.

NARROWING OR REMOVING ROADS EASES CONGESTION

If widening roads worsens congestion then is it also true that narrowing or
removing roads reduces congestion? Yes. A 1998 study of 60 cases worldwide
showed that when a road is closed or its capacity reduced an average of 20% of
traffic disappears. The study found instances where 60% of the traffic
disappeared. It isn’t displaced to other roads, it simply vanishes. We’re back to
those marginal value rides again. There’s great flexibility in people’s trips and it’s
relatively easy for them to avoid making the trip, change its timing, or ride
another way.

This is a crucial piece of evidence to support what should be a priority for towns
and cities everywhere: Creating public space – car-free and in the center of
town. Even if this public space occupies former auto-oriented streets (usually the
best candidates for public space), there’s unlikely to be much overflow to
neighboring streets.

Quincy Market - Boston

A beautiful place for people. Quincy Market, Boston MA. Credit: Boston
Geology.
ROAD WIDENING IS BAD ECONOMICS
Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute
State departments of transportation (DOTs) – often jokingly called highway
departments (which is what some of them actually used to be called) – seek out
road-building projects as a way to keep their personnel in work.

This might be good for highway builders but it’s bad for the economy overall. A
2010 study concludes that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure creation (a drop
in the bucket of all state DOT expenses) generates up to double the number of
jobs compared to automobile infrastructure. For every $1,000,000 spent on
gasoline only about 5 jobs are generated (and this is a generous estimate).

And the aftermath of road-widening is an even more automobile-oriented

society, which weakens local economies. Most auto-related spending leaves the
local economy, auto-infrastructure prevents land from generating property taxes,
and tourists tend to avoid car-oriented places.

The lesson is simple: Road widening is bad economics.

HOW TO ACTUALLY MOVE PEOPLE MORE QUICKLY

We’ve established that widening roads is not an effective way of reduce
commute times. So what is? The answer is the “multimodal street”, a fancy way
of saying a street designed for not only cars but for walking (sidewalks),
bicycling (protected bike lanes), and public transportation (bus-only lanes).

Let’s compare the capacity of a car-oriented street with a multimodal street:

Source: NACTO Global Street Design Guide

The evidence is that streets with bike lanes, bus-only lanes, wide sidewalks, and
(if they must be there) car lanes carry over twice as many people per hour and
thus decrease travel times as streets designed for just cars. This is because
biking, busing, and walking consume much less space per person and
encourage more compact development, reducing traveling distances.

GO SING IT ON THE MOUNTAIN

No longer can road widening be justified as a congestion-easing tool. Road
widening lengthens commutes, increases household costs, worsens pollution,
harms the economy, and, let us not forget, kills and injures millions of people
globally every year. Transportation departments and politicians had the
evidence decades ago and many continue to ignore it to this day. We need to
make them understand.
 The solution to congestion is compact development and multimodal (and
sometimes pedestrian-only) streets. Wherever cars come into contact with well-
designed human-scaled cities there’ll always be congestion; cars are extremely
inefficient uses of space, after all, and are incompatible with great places. The
question is: Do we want a lot of traffic congestion or a little?

And remember: Not all types of congestion are bad…

How do https://www.googl Dom Nozzi The Impact of 2013 For nearly a century, road widening has been touted as a powerful stimulus for
people feel e.com.ph/amp/s/d Road the local economy.
about this omz60.wordpress. Widening on
environmen com/2013/08/13/t the Local However, by striking contrast, I have learned the opposite.
tal he-impact-of-road- Economy
problem? widening-on-the- One of the most important lessons I have learned in my many years as a city
local- planner is that quality of life is a powerful economic engine, and that the “habitat”
economy/amp/ intended to make cars happy is, conversely, one of the most powerful ways that
quality of life in a community is damaged.

Road widening, as my book Road to Ruin illustrates, is the best invention

humans have come up with (short of aerial carpet bombing) to destroy
community quality of life. Widening a road inevitably creates a “For Cars Only”
ambience. It creates a “car habitat” that screams “CARS ARE WELCOME.
PEOPLE ARE NOT.”

The car habitat makes for a world that repels humans. Huge asphalt parking
lots. High-speed highways. Sterile dead monstor hwyzones which form “gap
tooth” tears in the fabric of a town center. Large amounts of air and noise
pollution. Awful levels of visual “Anywhere USA” blight. Worsened safety — for
pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users, that is.

And worst of all, because a person in a car consumes, on average, about 19

times as much space as a person sitting in a chair, places designed for cars lose
the comfortable, compact, enclosed, charming, human-scaled, vibrancy-inducing
spacing and place-making that so many people love to experience.

As David Mohney once said, the first task of the urbanist is controlling size.

One consequence of this worsening quality of life that comes from widening a
road to improve conditions for cars: The quality of the public realm worsens to
the point where American society is noted for growing levels of retreating from
the public realm and a flight to the cocooning private realm.
Given this, road widening and the substantial increase in auto dependency that
the widening induces sends the quality of life of a community into a downward
spiral. And that, in my opinion, is toxic to the economic health of a community.

Note that road widening inherently creates increased auto dependency because
big, high-speed, “happy car” roads create what economists call a “barrier effect.”
That is, big and high-speed roads make it more difficult to travel by bicycle,
walking or transit. So wider roads recruit new motorists in a vicious, never-
ending cycle of widening, more car dependence, more congestion, more calls
for widening, etc.

The end result?

Houston, Jacksonville, Detroit, Newark, Buffalo, Cleveland.

As Richard Florida powerfully argues in The Rise of the Creative Class, the
centerpiece of successful community economic development is recognizing that
instead of following the conventional model of drawing businesses by lowering
business costs and relaxing regulations, quality of life should be enhanced to
attract and retain quality “creative class” employees. It is not a coincidence that
Florida describes this form of quality of life as one which includes walkable,
vibrant, 24/7 vibrancy (where the car is subservient to the needs of people).

It is also no coincidence that Boulder, Colorado – where I now live – is ranked,

over and over again, as the city ranked first in a long list of quality of life
measures. Therefore, despite the fact that Boulder assesses relatively high
costs on businesses, applies relatively aggressive regulations on businesses
(measures traditionally assumed to be toxic to economic health), the Boulder
economy is consistently quite healthy. Even in times of national economic woes.

One awful tragedy for the State of Florida is that the 1985 Growth Management
law adopted by that state enshrined Community Design for Happy Cars by
requiring that future development be “concurrent” with adopted road standards.
That is, new development must not be allowed to “degrade” adopted community
“free-flowing traffic” standards. In other words, the state requires, under the
rubric of “growth management,” that all local governments must be designed to
facilitate car travel (too often doing so by widening a road). The apparent
thinking is that “free-flowing traffic” is a lynchpin for community quality of life.
The be-all and end-all. In my opinion, nothing can be further from the truth.

It is a law that locks communities into harming its quality of life.

 Another telling piece of information about economics: About 100 years ago,
households spent approximately 1-2 percent of their income on transportation.
Today, about 20-22 percent of the household budget goes to transportation.
Transportation costs have, in other words, been privatized, to the great
detriment of the economics of households.

In sum, widening roads, drains dollars from a community as the purchase of car-
based goods and services (cars, oil, gas, car parts, etc.) largely leave the
community, rather than being recycled within the community. Because the “car
habitat” and the “people habitat” clash, quality of life is significantly degraded
when the community is designed to facilitate cars (by widening roads, most
infamously). And that, as Richard Florida clearly shows, undercuts future
prospects for community economic health. Finally, household expenses are
severely undermined as the growing (and extremely costly) car dependency
leads to a declining ability to afford other household expenses.

The key is not so much to “get rid of cars” as to avoid overly pampering them
(through such things as underpriced [untolled] roads, free parking and
subsidized gasoline) in the design of our community. Doing so quickly leads to
the car dominating and degrading our world. Destroying our economic health
and quality of life. Cars must be our slaves rather than our masters. They should
feel like intruders, rather than welcomed guests. Only then will the future of a
community be sustainable and high quality.

It is time to return to the tradition of designing our communities to make people

happy, not cars.
What are https://www.resea Patrick Daigle A summary of 2010 Narrow the road right-of-way and roadside ditches (Roever et al. 2008a)
the possible rchgate.net/public the Stay away from vulnerable sites by using fexible road standards, which can
solutions to ation/A_summary environmental expand options for locating the roadbed within the right-of-way (Furniss et al.
this _of_the_environm impacts of 1991).
problem? ental_impacts_of_ roads,
roads_manageme management Prepare for climate change (e.g., wetter and warmer winters) by maintaining or
nt_responses_and responses, rehabilitating roads to minimize sedimentation (Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003)
_research_gaps_ and research Identify the most serious problems by assessing road systems at watershed
A_literature_revie gaps: scale, followed by feld reconnaissance (Furniss et al. 1991; Moore 1995; Luce
w A literature and Black 1999; Lewis 2000a; Atkins et al. 2001; Carver 2001; Grainger 2002;
review Carson and Younie 2003; Fannin et al. 2007; Mills et al. 2007)

Give extensive thought to road routes, road design, drainage, and road-stream
crossings such as culverts and bridges (Krag et al. 1986; Furniss et al. 1991;
Harr and Nichols 1993; Skaugset and Allen 1998; Elliot and Tysdal 1999; Elliot
2000; Lewis 2000a; Carver 2001; Megahan et al. 2001; BC Ministry of Forests
2002a, 2002b; Grainger 2002; Carson and Younie 2003; Macdonald et al. 2003;
Gillies 2007; Groenier and Gubernick 2007; Robichaud et al. 2010)

Relocate or realign roads to improve degraded wetland and riparian areas (Elliot
and Tysdal 1999; US Forest Service, Riparian Roads Team 2005; Aruga et al.
2007)

Use appropriate construction, upgrading, and maintenance methods to manage

drainage and minimize erosion and sedimentation (Toews and Brownlee 1981;
Skaugset and Allen 1998; US Forest Service 1999; Carson and Younie 2003;
Macdonald et al. 2003; Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003; Beechie et al. 2005; US
Forest Service, Riparian Roads Team 2005; Gillies 2007; Sugden and Woods
2007; BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2009; Jordan et al., in press)

In wet meadows, install permeable fll under the road surface along with a culvert
array (multiple culverts) to maintain subsurface water fow (US Forest Service,
Riparian Roads Team 2005)

Construct lead-out ditches and rock aprons to disperse water-fow energy and
reduce erosion (Elliot and Tysdal 1999; Carson and Younie 2003; Beechie et al.
2005; US Forest Service, Riparian Roads Team 2005; Gillies 2007)
Improve the engineering, construction, and maintenance of roads to reduce
landslides (Krag et al. 1986; Atkins et al. 2001; BC Ministry of Forests 2002b;
Beechie et al. 2005; US Forest Service, Riparian Roads Team 2005; Fannin et
al. 2007)

Restrict trafc (perhaps during the wet season) or close roads to manage
sediment runof (Rhodes et al. 1994; Tschaplinski 1994; Carson and Younie
2003; Macdonald et al. 2003)

In burned areas, systematically assess values at risk, post-fre runof potential,

and other considerations (e.g., potential damaging storms, probability of
success), then upgrade culverts, create water bars, and clean and armour
ditches (Foltz et al. 2009b)

Bioengineer slopes beside roads to reduce landslides (Lewis 2000b)

Afer road construction, seed, mulch, terrace, or combine treatments to control
erosion (Elliot and Tysdal 1999; Megahan et al. 2001; BC Ministry of Forests
2002a; Gillies 2007; Polster et al., in press)

Provide vegetated bufer zones (e.g., along stream sides) adjacent to roads to
reduce stream sedimentation and pollution, increase infltration, slow surface
water fow, and maintain microclimates and wildlife habitat (US Forest Service,
Riparian Roads Team 2005)

Design and construct appropriate roads in suitable locations (BC Ministry

Forests 2003)
Plant native plants to help control invasive alien plants (Tyser and Worley 1992;
Steinfeld 2007a, 2007b; Roever et al. 2008a)

Install appropriate fsh-stream crossings to improve fsh passage and access to

up-stream habitat (Furniss et al.
1991; BC Ministry of Forests 2002a, 2002b; Bates et al. 2003)

Construct fences or gates to limit human access to reduce wildlife mortality

(McLellan and Shackleton 1989; Cole et al. 1997; Jalkotzy et al. 1997; US
Forest Service 1999; Eubanks 2006; Roever et al. 2008a, 2008b; Fahrig and
Rytwinski 2009)

During appropriate seasons, install road-closure signs to reduce road-related

pressures on animals (when road decommissioning is not suitable) (Hunt and
Hosegood 2008)

Remove culverts, decommission road segments, reconstruct stream channels,

and revegetate exposed soils to restore bull trout habitat (Wegner 1999)
 Forest Fires
Environmental problem:
By: Jeus Ezekiel F. Galano, 12 STEM-A

URL Author Webpage Title Year Article

Published
Is it an https://shop.ecopl Silvio milanova Environmental 2011 The flames that have recently engulfed a large portion of the forests in the West
issue? um.com/blogs/sus Impact of and Southwest may seem 'harmless' to those living far away, but such persistent
tainable- Forest Fires wildfires can have a devastating impact on our environment and economy.
living/18611844-
environmental- Wildfires, which can occur from natural causes (less than 3 percent of wildland
impact-of-forest- fires) or human carelessness and accidents, spread very quickly and clear 4
fires million to 5 million acres (1.6 million to 2 million hectares) of land in the U.S.
every year. The number of outdoor fires is also astonishing. For example,
between 2007 and 2011, local fire departments responded to an estimated
average of 334,200 brush, grass, and forest fires per year. This equals about
915 such fires per day!

Focusing mostly on large forest fires, there are many positives for the
environment from these occurrences, such as:Cleaning up forests of dead and
decaying matter (natural fuel during drought periods); Maintaining ecosystem
balance by removing diseased plants and harmful insects; Regenerating seeds
through increased sunlight But be aware that there are also many devastating
consequences. These negative impacts are especially true with man-made fires,
as these unnatural disasters are unplanned, destructive and can become difficult
to tame. Still, regardless of the origin of a flame, these disasters can cause
tremendous deforestation and increase the release of carbon dioxide into the
air, creating a negative ratio of carbon dioxide and oxygen expenditure. Wildfires
can also: Damage the habitat of the environment—which depends on the soil
type and the fire’s intensity; Affect the species population and distribution after
an incident; Destroy homes and buildings; Incur costly evacuations and
destruction; Create heavy smog that is harmful to living things; Take animal and
human lives; In addition, wildfires deplete a lot of natural resources, including
water, which could lead to periods of needed water preservation in the area.
This can pose additional threats to drought-prone areas such as California. At
the same time, the damage caused by a forest fire can prevent the natural
process in which soil and leafage normally absorb rainfall. The disruption and
imbalance of the water distribution and flow can also cause floods in areas
where normally this would not occur.
 Although naturally occurring fires cannot be prevented, if you live in an area
where there is high risk of forest fires (especially with high summer
temperatures), take extra caution to help minimize the risk of man-made fires.
Click here for tips on what actions you can take. Let's all do what we can
because unfortunately, wild, fast-spreading fires have enormous negative effects
that often overshadow their positive environmental contribution.
How do https://www.washi Chad Hanson No, we can’t — 2017 The American West is burning, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) tells us in his
people ngtonpost.com/opi and Mike and shouldn’t recent Post op-ed. He and officials in the Trump administration have described
think about nions/no-we-cant- Garrity — stop forest Western forest fires as catastrophes, promoting congressional action ostensibly
this -and-shouldnt-- fires to save our National Forests from fire by allowing widespread commercial
environmen stop-forest- logging on public lands. This, they claim, will reduce forest density and the fuel
tal fires/2017/09/26/6 for wildfires.
problem? 4ff718c-9fbf-11e7-
9c8d- But this position is out of step with current science and is based on several
cf053ff30921_stor myths promoted by commercial interests.
y.html?utm_term=
.d4b720ef0596 The first myth is the notion that fire destroys our forests and that we currently
have an unnatural excess of fire. Nothing could be further from the truth. There
is a broad consensus among scientists that we have considerably less fire of all
intensities in our Western U.S. forests compared with natural, historical levels,
when lightning-caused fires burned without humans trying to put them out.

There is an equally strong consensus among scientists that fire is essential to

maintain ecologically healthy forests and native biodiversity. This includes large
fires and patches of intense fire, which create an abundance of biologically
essential standing dead trees (known as snags) and naturally stimulate
regeneration of vigorous new stands of forest. These areas of “snag forest
habitat” are ecological treasures, not catastrophes, and many native wildlife
species, such as the rare black-backed woodpecker, depend on this habitat to
survive.

Fire or drought kills trees, which attracts native beetle species that depend on
dead or dying trees. Woodpeckers eat the larvae of the beetles and then create
nest cavities in the dead trees, because snags are softer than live trees. The
male woodpecker creates two or three nest cavities each year, and the female
picks the one she likes the best, which creates homes for dozens of other forest
wildlife species that need cavities to survive but cannot create their own, such as
bluebirds, chickadees, chipmunks, flying squirrels and many others.

More than 260 scientists wrote to Congress in 2015 opposing legislative

proposals that would weaken environmental laws and increase logging on
National Forests under the guise of curbing wildfires, noting that snag forests
are “quite simply some of the best wildlife habitat in forests.”

That brings us to myth No. 2: that eliminating or weakening environmental laws

— and increasing logging — will somehow curb or halt forest fires. In 2016, in
the largest analysis ever on this question, scientists found that forests with the
fewest environmental protections and the most logging had the highest — not
the lowest — levels of fire intensity. Logging removes relatively noncombustible
tree trunks and leaves behind flammable “slash debris,” consisting of kindling-
like branches and treetops.

This is closely related to myth No. 3: that dead trees, usually removed during
logging projects, increase fire intensity in our forests. A comprehensive study
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly
debunked this notion by showing that outbreaks of pine beetles, which can
create patches of snag forest habitat, didn’t lead to more intense fires in the
area. A more recent study found that forests with high levels of snags actually
burn less intensely. This is because flames spread primarily through pine
needles and small twigs, which fall to the ground and soon decay into soil
shortly after trees die.

Finally, myth No. 4: that we can stop weather-driven forest fires. We can no
more suppress forest fires during extreme fire weather than we can stand on a
ridgetop and fight the wind. It is hubris and folly to even try. Fires slow and stop
when the weather changes. It makes far more sense to focus our resources on
protecting rural homes and other structures from fire by creating “defensible
space” of about 100 feet between houses and forests. This allows fire to serve
its essential ecological role while keeping it away from our communities.

Lawmakers in Congress are promoting legislation based on the mythology of

catastrophic wildfires that would largely eliminate environmental analysis and
public participation for logging projects in our National Forests. This would
include removing all or most trees in both mature forests and in ecologically vital
post-wildfire habitats — all of which is cynically packaged as “fuel reduction”
measures.

The logging industry’s political allies have fully embraced the deceptive
“catastrophic wildfire” narrative to promote this giveaway of our National Forests
to timber corporations. But this narrative is a scientifically bankrupt smoke
screen for rampant commercial logging on our public lands. The American
people should not fall for it.
How do http://www.letusfin 2009 Home Forest fire is both bad and good for human. It is bad because it destroys many
people feel dout.com/how-do- Privacy Policy valuable trees and plants while it is good because of forests regeneration and
about this forest-fires- Useful Links give tangible benefits to local communities.
environmen affects-humans/ How do forest
tal fires affects Forest fire releases biomass smoke which has pollutant in it and has very bad
problem? humans affect on people’s health. It can be a small eye, nose or throat irritation or
may have serious affect on body causing persistent cardio-pulmonary conditions
and can even reach to premature death in very rare cases. The biomass smoke
generally enters by the inhaling process. It also enters by ingestion and dermal
absorption.

The smoke that rises from the forests fire can cause accidents on the nearby
highways as the visibility of the drivers of vehicles is distracted by the smoke
Forest fire can disturb the eco-system of the neighboring areas and also affects
the climate. It can harm the lives of animals living in the forests, buildings,
plantation and crops. It also affects on the fertility of soil. Forest fire harms the
water bodies making it fouled streams, changes the taste of water and also
increase the growth of bacteria and pathogens in water.

Forest fires also have positive effects. Feller says that some trees, plants,
flowers depend on the fire, heat and sunlight so that they can get favorable
conditions for the germination and the animals for e.g.:- deer, elk etc thrive on
the plants that grow after the fire on the burnt land. Fire is a cheap and simple
method for clearing the forests and sometimes become the only option

What are http://www.borealf Forest fires 2017 Grass fires are a major concern for firefighters in early spring; they get quickly
the possible orest.org/world/inn eprevention out of control and can cause serious damage in agricultural and forested lands.
solutions to ova/fire_preventio Forest fire officials encourage people not to light grass fires or burn debris.
this n.htm Burning dry grass in fields or yard debris can spread to nearby forests.
problem?
Consider no-burn options. Many landfills offer designated days when yard debris
can be disposed of at little or no cost. Many "how to" publications and advice are
available about composting. On-site chipping may be feasible. Limbs and other
debris may be piled for wildlife habitat if located where it does not pose a wildfire
hazard.

Carelessly lit and tended campfires and smoking are another major concern
throughout the burning season.

Every year, countless acres of forests are burned because of human

carelessness. To help prevent fires in or near forest land during the forest fire
season, the following steps should be followed:

Check local regulations regarding permit requirements and "burn ban"

restrictions. These are available from your municipality, fire department or
department of natural resources. They may include: Obtaining a burning permit
for burning grass, brush, slash or other debris in or within a prescribed distance
of forest land; A campfire permit and the landowner's permission for an open
campfire, cooking fire or bonfire in or near forest land; A work permit for any
work in forest land involving two or more people.

Burn only natural vegetation or untreated wood products. Burn piles are at least
50 feet from structures and 500 feet from any forest slash. Clear the area
around the burn pile of any flammable debris. Keep firefighting equipment handy
- a connected water hose or at least five gallons of water and a shovel should be
nearby. Don't burn if it's too windy to burn - if trees are swaying, flags are
extended, or waves appear on open water. Be prepared to extinguish the fire if it
becomes a nuisance. Attend the fire until it is completely out. Smoking should
not be done while moving from one place to another in forest land. Make sure
your butt is out - "dead out!" Power saws must have a proper muffler and be
accompanied by a round point shovel or fire extinguisher. Cars, trucks and
machinery must have proper exhaust systems when operated in or near forest
land. Exhaust spark arresters are a requirement on certain machines.
Know your local emergency telephone number if a fire becomes uncontrollable.